Has Boland become a big bully?
UPDATE: The Boland Rugby Union’s stubborn stance towards community club La Motte may land them back in court.
In what has been described as ‘bullying tactics’, the BRU informed the community-based club from Franschhoek that their membership is ‘up for review‘ at a Special General Meeting in Wellington this coming Saturday, May 31.
In response, lawyers on behalf of La Motte, Mbabane Attorneys, informed the BRU that they will not hesitate to return to court to enforce a May 6 court order.
La Motte, a community-based club from Franschhoek and labelled by some Cape Town officials as ‘Mickey Mouse’, won their case against a decision by WPRFU to prevent them from affiliating to the BRU.
The club sought urgent legal relief to compel its reinstatement into the BRU Community Shield competition.
The respondents in the case were the BRU, WPRFU, South African Rugby Football Union, Kobus Vergotine, Danny Jones and Faizel Felton.
The judge, Justice Francis, in his ruling, determined that the BRU must comply with a decision taken at the union’s Annual General Meeting on November 30. (To read the ruling, CLICK HERE!)
WPRFU was also instructed not to ‘unlawfully interfere’ in the affairs of La Motte.
However, it is the actions of the BRU that caused La Motte to turn to their Attorneys for palliation.
Not only has the BRU scheduled a Special General Meeting for Saturday, May 31, but they even declined a request from La Motte to play a ‘pre-season friendly’ in preparation for their inclusion in the second round.
(Article continues below …)
“We confirm we remain on record for La Motte Rugby Football Club,” Mbabane said in a letter addressed to the BRU lawyers, Kellerman Joubert & Heyns.
“Our client instructed that your client has given notice of a Special General Meeting on May 31.
“Our client has been informed that our client’s membership of your client will be up for reconsideration.
“While your client has not been prohibited from holding such a meeting, the SGM must, of course take into account that our client remains a member of your client until the Finalisation of Part B of the application,” they said about the May 6 ruling.
“Any decision taken which anticipates the outcome of Part B will, of course, constitute a contempt of court, and our client will provide us with instructions in this regard.
“Our instructions are therefore to request that you confirm the SGM will not consider the matters which are already before court and therefore sub-judice.
“We can also advise that we have received instructions to propose, purely on a without prejudice basis that all further litigation be withdrawn and our client be allowed its undisturbed enjoyment of the game of rugby with the boundaries of your client as already agreed with your client and in a context where the WPRFU has complied in full and transferred the footprint to your client.”
Boland President Bennie van Rooi, who is regarded as a close associate of the new Western Province Rugby Football Union President, Kevin Kiewitz, has so far declined to answer any of @rugby365com‘s questions regarding the saga.
Van Rooi and his executive have been labelled ‘bullies’ by a more vocal faction of the La Motte club.
Dr Harlan Cloete, an engaged scholar and research fellow at the Centre for Gender and Africa Studies at the University of the Free State, did not hold back in his criticism of the BRU.
(Continue below …)
“The La Motte case has sparked widespread governance debate about how a grassroots game dispute reached the country’s legal system,” he said in a statement to @rugby365com.
He outlined some of the governance questions he feels are confronting the leadership of the BRU.
“La Motte was affiliated to the BRU from 2007 and 2008, then joined WPRFU in 2009.
“In April 2024, the local community mandated La Motte to seek re-affiliation with BRU due to a decade-long struggle to get full membership status under WPRFU. In November 2024, after a full 10-month process, BRU unanimously accepted La Motte as a full member at its AGM. The club received formal confirmation in December 2024.”
He pointed to the court ruling earlier this month, which instructed the WPRFU to ‘unlawfully interfere’ with La Motte’s return to the BRU.
“Despite a formal BRU AGM decision, some officials downgraded La Motte’s status to ‘provisional’ pending transfer of the players’ Footprint from WPRFU to BRU.
“The court then ordered BRU to comply with its decision of November 30 and that it must allow La Motte full participation in all activities until the court has made a different decision under Part B of the application.
“Part B will be heard eventually and after BRU has filed their Answering Affidavit in respect of Part B. It is a well-known fact that BRU has not done so yet.”
Cloete further pointed to what he regards as ‘wider contradictions in governance’.
These include Hamlets in Mamre, under the City of Cape Town; Dennegeur and Wemmershoek in the BRU, with Franschhoek in WPRFU (all from the Stellenbosch Municipality) and in the Drakenstein Municipality where 14 out of a total of 35 clubs play in WPRFU and the rest in BRU.
Paarl submitted papers to leave the WPRFU in January to formally join BRU in 2026.
Cloete suggested the Boland clubs are being used to get BRU to bow the knee before WPRFU as if “BRU is a mere subsidiary of WPRFU”.
“Will the BRU clubs on Saturday, May 31, agree that they made an illegal decision on November 30 and then ask the question on whose advice they made an illegal decision?”
“Or will the clubs say that they made a decision which they were fully empowered to make [which they were] and La Motte remains a member of the Boland Rugby Union irrespective of what the Western Province Rugby Football Union might think?
“Will legal clarity, good governance and community will prevail, or will rugby politricks win the day?”
@king365ed
@rugby365com
Related articles
‘Mickey Mouse’ club wins big in court
SARU dragged to court in public spat
Stormers welcome new WPRFU era
New WPRFU president selected
