The legal battle for control over the Comrades Marathon Association (CMA) continued on Thursday when concerned members headed back to court and secured a final interdict halting what they say was “meddling” by KwaZulu-Natal Athletics (KZNA) in its affairs.
The application was opposed by KZNA but the CMA agreed to abide by the decision of the court.
Pietermaritzburg high court judge Peter Olsen heard argument on Thursday in the members' application for the confirmation of an interim interdict granted in August last year by judge Rob Mossop which put on ice a KZNA ruling that only people living in KwaZulu-Natal could be members of the CMA.
Olsen confirmed the interdict.
With regards to a declarator sought by the members that KZNA has no right to interfere in the affairs of the association, Olsen said the issue would be best dealt with in a pending review of the decision.
The review application has been filed by the members and KZNA has until the end of this week to file a notice of opposition and provide the record of the controversial decision.
“This case is not good for the Comrades Marathon or South Africa,” Olsen said, before hearing the argument.
The court action was sparked by a resolution by KZNA last year saying only people living in the province could be members — with full voting rights — of the CMA in terms of its “domicile rule”.
Those living outside the province would be “volunteer members” — with no formal say in how the CMA, which organises the Comrades, is run.
The resolution was adopted by the KZNA after several CMA members called for a special general meeting to discuss issues, including racist remarks made by certain board members regarding alleged attempts to “pack the board with whites”, the sudden axing of race organiser Ann Ashworth by the board, and allegations of “vote buying” and “busing in” of marshalls to influence CMA meetings.
The members accused some board members of trying to “capture” the organisation by giving membership to a “powerful bloc” of more than 200 “community marshalls” — none of whom are athletes, but who have voting powers, and were allegedly told who to vote for.
In essence, the disgruntled CMA members believe KZNA wants to take over the running of the association through diluting membership.
It never saw fit, in the past, to prevent members of the CMA who reside outside the province from exercising their constitutional rights as members. It failed to mention why, all of a sudden, the status quo is prejudicial to it
— CMA members
Ahead of the special meeting in August last year, Mossop granted the interim interdict in favour of the members which put the KZNA ruling on ice, and the meeting went ahead with all CMA members attending and voting.
With the interdict still in place, all members also attended and voted at the ordinary AGM held in November at which a record seven new board members were elected.
In its application for the finalisation of the interdict — which will remain in place until the outcome of the review application — the members say the CMA is not a club as defined by the KZNA constitution, but a special member and its domicile rule — that athletes have to belong to an affiliated club in their provinces — does not apply to it.
They argue the KZNA has no right to dictate to the CMA regarding its internal policies, procedures, governance or membership.
In heads of argument in Thursday’s application, they say KZNA’s resolution was nothing else but a “direct attempt to interfere in and regulate the internal and domestic affairs of the CMA”.
“The effect of the resolution is to prescribe to the CMA whom it should allow as members, whom it should exclude as members and to create a new category of members ‘volunteers’.
“Not only is the resolution in direct conflict with the CMA constitution, it also seeks to divest existing members, residing outside the province, of their long-established rights.”
In opposing the finalisation of the interdict, KZNA says instead of turning to the court, the members should have used internal dispute resolution processes.
It claimed to be the custodian of athletics in the province, and said the interdict was stifling its authority.
It insisted the CMA was a member of and subject to the rules and regulations of the KZNA and KZNA had the power to impose requirements on the CMA’s membership in the interests of the sport of athletics in the province.
The members say, however, no dispute resolution process provides for this particular dispute and the members had no alternative but to approach the court on an urgent basis.
With regards to the submission that KZNA was being “frustrated” from carrying out its public function, the members argue that KZNA had not provided specifics of the impact of this.
“It never saw fit, in the past, to prevent members of the CMA who reside outside the province from exercising their constitutional rights as members. It failed to mention why, all of a sudden, the status quo is prejudicial to it.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.