23 May SA High Court dismisses James Evans case against WPA with costs
Western Province Athletics (WPA) has won case No: 7998/22 in the High Court of South Africa against Mr James Thomas Evans.
Please find below a summary of the judgment made on 16 May 2023 and the full judgement in PDF format.
The applicant (Mr James Evans) sought an order that the respondent (WPA) be held in contempt of court. WPA was ordered to comply with an arbitration which had been made an order of the court.
This meant that compliance should commence within 30 days of service of the order and disciplinary processes should be completed within 90 days of such order.
The High Court found that Mr Evans agreed to draft the charge sheet for WPA. Although this might sound unusual, it is what the parties agreed to.
The Court also concluded that Mr Evans cannot make such an undertaking, and then abuse that undertaking by arguing that the respondent did nothing to expedite the hearing.
Mr Evans also dictated the pace of the disciplinary proceedings. He therefore cannot be heard to complain that nothing was done by WPA when he “voluntary took that ball to be in his court of play and delayed throwing it into the playing field.”
Mr Evans voluntary accepted to act for the respondent (WPA) and whatever delays may have occasioned to access information including from WPA, did not undo that he was acting for WPA in the drafting of the charges.
The 90 days meant 90 court days, and not 90 calendar days. WPA therefore had until 30 November 2022 to comply with the court order. Mr Evans’s filing sheet and supplementary affidavit was found to be premature.
According to the court Mr Evans procedural mengelmoes resulted in a random assortment of facts which sometimes were a confused mixture of processes and issues. A clinical assessment all the relevant factors led the court to conclude that WPA was not wilful in its failure to comply with the court order.
Mr Evans simply did what he called a filing sheet and supplementary affidavit. This process created by Mr Evans for inexplicable reasons, caused him to formulate his own rules and time frames. This is part of the problem between the two parties.
Furthermore, the High Court of South Africa found that supplementing opposed papers and then claiming that the same matter is unopposed – is intellectual dishonesty by Mr Evans.
The court also found that Mr 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.
The application by Mr James Evans was therefore dismissed with costs by the High Court of South Africa.
READ THE FULL FINDINGS AGAINST MR JAMES EVANS HERE: High Court of South Africa Judgement against James Thomas Evans
