ASA to refer lawsuit case to IAAF

Athletics South Africa (ASA) will exercise its option to refer the matter in which Pole Vault
athlete Jan Gabriel Blignaut is suing ASA, to the IAAF for guidance.
This follows jugdement handed by the High Court in Pretoria on Tuesday which has ordered
that ASA must pay the Blignaut a sum of R10 million for an injury sustained during an
athletic meeting at Pretoria University on 27 March 2009.
ASA president Aleck Skhosana said: We received the full judgement today and we will
begin carefully study it. We are not yet decided on what further steps to take, but given that
ASA and IAAF rules clearly state that matters between members should not be referred to a
court of law, we shall be seeking an audience with our mother body on this matter.
We may also request the athlete to be examined by our own medical experts to satisfy
ourselves with reference to this lawsuit.
ASA attorney, Monty Hacker, outlined the way forward: ASA intends to approach the court
to apply for a stay of execution of judgement and/or to rescind judgement.
The full matter is as follows:
1. During October/November 2011, ASA was served with a Summons from the Plaintiff (JG
Blignaut), claiming payment of the sum of R2,765,786.72 being in respect of damages which
the Plaintiff had allegedly sustained whilst competing in an athletics meeting at Pretoria
University, which injuries the Plaintiff alleged had been sustained by him as a result of
negligence on the part of ASA and/or its officials.
2. This action was defended by ASA which, in its Plea, it denied any alleged negligence and
repudiated liability for the Plaintiffs claimed damages.
3. The trial had been set down for hearing in Pretoria on 17 April 2013, at the height of
ASAs disorganisation, resulting from facts and circumstances which are already in the
public domain.
4. This debacle also caused ASA to suffer serious cash flow problems, because of which it
was unable to provide its attorneys of record with funds sufficient to enable them to keep
Counsel in the matter on brief, in order for the matter to be taken to trial by ASA.
5. Despite ASA being placed on terms to provide the necessary funding for the trial, ASA
was unable to do so and approximately one month before the trial date of 17 April 2013,
ASAs attorneys of record withdrew from the matter and released their Counsel from his
brief.
6. Despite being notified of the withdrawal of their attorneys, ASA (and/or its former
President) took no steps to replace them or to themselves attend the trial on 17 April 2013. As
a consequence, Judgment was given against ASA by default on the merits, where after the
trial was postponed to a date to be arranged, in order for the quantum of the Plaintiffs claim
for damages to be established and ruled upon.

7. A trial date for the establishment of the Plaintiffs damages was set down for 16 September
2014 in the High Court, Pretoria. However, during the interim period following the date of
the Judgment on the merits, ASA, because of ongoing disputes and in fighting with and
between different leadership incumbents, there was no order within ASA until approximately
7 June 2014, when a democratic election was held, Aleck Skhosana elected as President, and
a new Board elected to take control of the organisation. This, however, left the new ASA
Board with insufficient time to deal with and respond to facts which appeared already to have
been cast in stone by means of the Plaintiffs supporting documentation in respect of his
damages, being medical and other certificates, and actuarial reports. Consequently, ASA was
in no position to contest these reports or the actuarial calculations following therefrom. These
reports then resulted in the Plaintiff increasing his claim for damages from R2, 765,786.72 to
upwards of R10, 000.000.00, at which time no mandate had as yet been given by ASA to its
former attorneys for them to again place themselves on record and to appear, with Counsel on
16 September 2014. At the very last minute, however, ASA, during mid-morning on 15
September 2014, formally engaged the services of their former attorneys, instructing them to
hold a watching brief at the trial on quantum, the following day, with knowledge that they
and their attorneys were in no position to contest the hearing on the quantification of the
Plaintiffs damages.
8. At the trial on quantum, before Judge Pretorius on 16 September 2014, the Judge granted
Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff, for R10, 402,106.94 together with costs and interest on
the capital sum at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the Order to the date of payment
of the capital, and on the taxed party and party costs of the Plaintiff.
9. It has since come to the attention of the new ASA President and his Board that the dispute
in this matter between the Plaintiff and ASA ought not to have been dealt with, as it was, as a
civil trial, because the ASA Rules (as prescribed in its Constitution), in accordance with the
Rules of the IAAF, require all disputes between ASA (as an IAAF Affiliate) and its athletes
to be strictly adjudicated upon by way of an arbitration.
10. In the circumstances, it is ASAs intention, to obtain a stay of execution in respect of the
two Judgments obtained by the Plaintiff, which stay will be sought pending the outcome of
the transfer of the matter to arbitration. Alternatively, it is the intention of ASAs Board to
make Application to the High Court in Pretoria, for the rescission of both Judgments, (on
quantum and on the merits), in order to do so, to have the Court condone, if found to be
applicable and necessary, the late bringing of this Application for Condonation, and for the
entire matter, once the rescission will have been granted, to be referred to arbitration, de
novo, but permitting the parties to rely on the existing pleadings with such modifications or
amplifications thereto which each of the parties may require.
The attitude of the Plaintiff to this intended Application for the rescission of these Judgments,
as expressed by the Plaintiffs attorney, is that he will not agree to any such Application for
rescission or the referral of this matter to arbitration, and that he will resist all such steps
which may be taken by ASA. He has gone further to add that, as far as he is concerned, he
requires payment in terms of his Judgment and will, if necessary, bring an Application for the
Liquidation of ASA, should he not receive payment of his Judgment in full.