- SA stars on track for national championships
- Bezuidenhout, Smit off to flyer at Better Ball Challenge
- Thousands of women prepare for running Challenge
- SA’s team named to do Fed Cup duty in Lithuania
- Hawtrey’s passing a big loss for SA cycling
- Nienaber back with a bang, targets another Nomads title
- Seboko best of the bunch in uphill battle in Uganda
- Davids doubles up in Summer Series
- Elkington eclipses opposition at Loch Ness
- Hurdler Steenkamp winding up for a big one
Arbitrator rules in favour of Advocate Arendse in CSA arbitration case
- Updated: November 21, 2012
Cricket South Africa’s (CSA) exclusion of Advocate Norman Arendse as an Independent Director on the new CSA Board was set aside, it was ruled on Wednesday, 21 November.
This follows SASCOC’s facilitating of the arbitration process by Advocate Hilton Epstein SC at Olympic House in Johannesburg between CSA and Advocate Arendse following the postponement of CSA’s Annual General Meeting on 27 October to 30 November, 2012.
Former CSA President Arendse had lodged a complaint with SASCOC after his absence on the new Board. CSA had released the name of five independent Board members to form a new Board of directors who would sit alongside the five provincial union presidents who would have been selected at the AGM.
Central to the arbitration was part of CSA’s Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI) which stated that an independent director should be free from any business or other relationship that could be seen to materially interfere with the individual’s capacity to act in an independent manner and, who has not been associated with cricket in the preceding three years.
SASCOC objected to the make-up of the board, saying that the sport should be run primarily by sports people, and should be reflective of the geopolitical boundaries of our country which will effectively see the proper implementation of the Transformation Charter of the country.
Advocate Epstein ruled that he found Arendse has in fact not been associated with cricket for the preceding three years within the meaning of clause 4.9 and that in all the circumstances he found that Arendse’s status as an honorary life member of WPCA is not a relationship that could be seen to materially influence his capacity to act in an independent manner as envisaged by clause 4.8 of the MOI.
Advocate Epstein went on to declare:
1). The decision of the Board of Cricket South Africa of 14 October 2012 to reject the nomination of Norman Arendse as an Independent Director is set aside.
2.) Cricket South Africa is to pay the costs of the arbitration on the High Court scale as between party and party including the costs of the Arbitrator. The costs shall be taxed by the Taxing Master of the High Court (South Gauteng High Court division). Should the Taxing Master refuse to tax the costs, the costs shall be taxed by a Taxing Consultant appointed by the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee. The costs of the Taxing Consultant will form part of the costs of the arbitration.