This week, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) handed down judgment, striking from the roll an application for reconsideration brought by controversial former sports boss, James Thomas Evans. 

Evans averred that the Western Cape Province Athletics (WP Athletics) should be held in contempt of court for allegedly failing to hold disciplinary hearings against certain members of WP Athletics within 90 days, as required by a prior court order.

The order was served on WP Athletics on 30 August 2022 and the first inquiry was conducted within the 30-day time period. Evans on 30 November 2022, filed a filing sheet and supplementary affidavit supplementing his papers to apply, inter alia, for an order holding WP Athletics in contempt of court for failing to hold the further disciplinary hearings within the 90-day period. 

However, the high court  found that 90 days meant court days and that Evans’ filing sheet and supplementary affidavit were “simply premature”.

SCA acting Justice Fathima Dawood reiterated that exceptional circumstances exist only where a case raises a “substantial legal issue, is of great public importance, or where refusing leave would cause a grave injustice”. 

Attempts to get comment from WP Athletics and Evans were unsuccessful by deadline.

Evans argued that exceptional circumstances arose because: (a) the proceedings relating to the virtual hearing of the application for leave to appeal, were not recorded; (b) his right to access to court was infringed, as the additional affidavits were filed by WP Athletics without him being given an opportunity to respond; (c) the granting of orders, not sought by the parties, were irregular; (d) the rules of the court were flouted by WP Athletics, which prevented him from filing a replying affidavit; and (e) WP Athletics’ non-compliance with court orders and the nature of the orders granted by the high court brought the administration of justice into disrepute. 

The SCA found none of these grounds met the threshold for exceptional circumstances.

The SCA held that the absence of a recording or judgment did not cause a grave injustice and that the high court’s additional order setting out time periods for the individual disciplinary hearings was aimed at resolving the matter efficiently. 

Importantly, the SCA held that the contempt proceedings were launched prematurely because the 90-day period in the order referred to court days, not calendar days, and the time for compliance had not expired. The SCA accordingly, struck the application for reconsideration from the roll.

Justice Dawood said: “It is not in dispute that there was a hearing and that an ex-tempore judgment was handed down wherein leave to appeal was refused. The main judgment and order refusing leave was presented to two justices of this Court to consider whether or not to grant leave to appeal, and leave was refused.

“Evans was not denied a hearing and an order was made albeit without a recording of the reasons. The two justices of this Court, had the application for leave to appeal before them together with Evans’ affidavit, main judgment and WP Athletics’ response and the order refusing leave. They were able to reach a decision based on the information before them. If they had required the high court’s reasons for refusing leave to appeal they would have requested them. No grave injustice occurred by the lack of a written judgment in respect of the application for leave to appeal.”

In a previous statement by WP Athletics, it said: “According to the court, Evans procedural mengelmoes resulted in a random assortment of facts which sometimes were a confused mixture of processes and issues. 

“This process created by Evans for inexplicable reasons, caused him to formulate his own rules and time frames. This is part of the problem between the two parties…The court also found that Evans positioned himself, not only in the dispute between the two parties, but also as regards to the court process between them, as referee and player, it was either his way or the highway.

“Perhaps it could assist Mr Evans to humble himself to the reality that because things are not done his way, they are not necessarily inherently wrong,” WP Athletics had said. 

Chevon.booysen@inl.co.za

Source link