Swazi Observer

FULL STORY

PLE REFUTES WANDERERS’ CONTEMPT OF COURT ALLEGATIONS

By MELUSI MLOTSA | 2024-10-30

SOCCER - THERE is double action in the country’s football corridors, as focus is now on and off the field of play.

This comes after the Premier League of Eswatini (PLE) vehemently disputed allegations that they were in contempt of court.

This past weekend, Manzini Wanderers gave the PLE a three-day ultimatum to honour the court order or they risked being charged for contempt of court.

Through their lawyer Sifiso ‘Charlie’ Jele, Wanderers served the PLE with court papers on Friday during the supposed Ordinary General Meeting at Sigwaca House, citing as respondents PLE Chairman Polycarp Dlamini, acting Chief Executive Officer Pat Vilakati and Football Manager Banele Masondo.

However, the PLE denied that and through their lawyer Meluleki Ndlangamandla, they filed answering affidavits, refuting the contempt of court claims.

They argued that they wrote to the Eswatini Football Association (EFA) seeking guidance on the issue of Wanderers’ clarity on whether they shall be fixtured or not, which the football mother body responded to the effect that nothing should be done as the matter was still pending in court.

They stated that the allegations were ill-conceived, vexatious and mendacious in nature.

“In addressing the subject on contempt of court , I shall foremost point out that it is rather unconventional for a party to accuse the other of being in contempt of court of an order of court when there are three appeals against the orders, which are subject of contempt .

“I say this because of the fact that three appeals were brought to knowledge of the applicant through its attorney. But as an unconditional approach, the known appeals are simply ignored and the approach is such that there are no appeals pending in the Supreme Court when in fact there are. This in our view is a textbook case of clear abuse of court processes and vexatious litigation.

“I’m a advised that the requirements that have to be met by an applicant for contempt of court are, there should be a lawful order of court, it should be brought to the attention of the party accused that there should be brought to the attention of party accused, that there should be willful mala fide non-compliance with the order of court and that there should not be a justified reason in law for willful non-compliance with order of court,” reads the court papers. The PLE also pointed out that the order issued on September 27 was appealed immediately and pending before the Supreme Court.

“The appeal as well is pending before the Supreme Court and remains undetermined to present date.

“Secondly, there is also an appeal against the order that the simple justified reason is that two appeals against the order of the October 19 and first the PLE registered Supreme Court Case No. 98/24 and another by Denver Sundowns registered Supreme Court Case No. 99/24.

“I submit that the effect of noting an appeal against an order regardless of whether the appeal is noted correctly or wrongly, it has an effect of automatically staying operation of the order or judgment impugned in terms of automatically staying operation of the order or judgment impugned in terms of common law,” they say.

The matter will be back in court on Friday for arguments before Judge Mumcy Dlamini

share story