Home » Racing & Sport » NHA AGM – Deadline Today

NHA AGM – Deadline Today

AGM on 16 January 2019

 Today is the deadline for the submission of agenda items for inclusion in the 137th Annual General Meeting of Members of the National Horseracing Authority.

National Horseracing AuthorityThe AGM will be held at the offices of The National Horseracing Authority of Southern Africa, Turffontein Racecourse, Turf Club Street, Turffontein, on Wednesday, 16 January 2019, at 14h00.

Any queries can be emailed to [email protected]

Have Your Say

Comments Policy
The Sporting Post encourages allcomers to feel free to have their say in the spirit of enlightening the topic, the participants and the originator of the thread. However, if it is deemed to be either offensive, insulting, personal, false or possibly unsubstantiated, the Sporting Post shall, on it's own assessment, alter or remove comments.

16 comments on “NHA AGM – Deadline Today

  1. Steve Reid says:

    Mr Editor perhaps you could ask the acting CEO or whatever he is called, how does he expect questions from members when the Annual Report for 2018 has not been made available to members to peruse? From what I have been reliably informed, the financials this year will be particularly interesting to digest, particularly unauthorized spending by some departed employee/s. We need this bastion of integrity to act properly, I am sure that it was an oversight on their behalf…

    Thanking you in anticipation.

    1. Editor says:

      Tks Steve
      Have requested clarity from the NHA

    2. Editor says:

      As soon as the Annual Report goes to print, a PDF version will be uploaded on our website. This should be by Friday 7 December 2018.

      Kind regards,
      Arnold Hyde

  2. Jess K says:

    Seeing that the Annual Report will only be available this coming Friday, the deadline date for agenda items should be extended.

    1. Editor says:

      Hi Jess, we did ask that this morning when receiving the response
      Awaiting a reply

  3. Steve Reid says:

    Mr Editor,

    Credit to the acting CEO he has released the minutes of last years AGM as well as the financials for last year as promised. I have had a brief look at the two and would like to highlight the following:

    The Constitution of the NHA has this to say about the AGM and the quorum needed to constitute a valid meeting:


    No business shall be transacted at the meeting unless a quorum of 20 MEMBERS entitled to vote is present in person or by proxy.

    If within half an hour of the time appointed for any GENERAL MEETING of MEMBERS a quorum is not present, the meeting shall stand adjourned to the same day in the next week at the same place and time. If at such an adjourned meeting a quorum is not present, then those MEMBERS present in person or by proxy shall be a quorum and may transact the business for which the meeting was called.

    So it is very clear 20 MEMBERS entitled to vote need to be present or else NO BUSINESS WILL BE TRANSACTED.

    Taken from the minutes of the 2018 AGM :



    National Board Directors:
    Mr K P Truter (Chairman)
    Mr L J Barends (Chief Executive)
    Mr C S Beyleveld
    Mr A G O’Connor
    Mr S M Dolamo
    Mr J J du Toit
    Mr A D Hyde
    Adv P Stais SC

    Mr A M Costa
    Mr I A E Jayes
    Mrs C J Hartley
    Mr R S Napier

    Mr E G Anderson
    Mr A J Rivalland
    Mr R J Trotter
    Mr J M Witts-Hewinson

    In Attendance:
    Mr B Sibanyoni (The NHA)
    Mr D Moodley (The NHA)
    Mr R Gomes (Nolands South Africa)

    Simple arithmetic dictates that there were 8 Board members and 4 normal members = 12 Members ( I wont debate whether some board members are entitled to vote that can be a gimme. Apologies x 4 ( lets assume they gave a proxy = 16 members. 2 X NHA employees and 1 auditor and you still dont get to 20. Cant the NHA board count, or do they not know their own rules???

    This AGM is not valid. There is no mention of proxies received in the report, thus the required quorum did not exist on the day and this meeting should have been rescheduled for the following week as per the rules.

    And you wonder why people think this lot are clueless. They do not adhere to the constitution.

    Perhaps you would ask the acting CEO to give an answer on this.

    1. Editor says:

      Thanks Steve

      Will direct this comment to Mr Hyde’s office

  4. The Dark Duke says:

    I can already hear the scurrying around attempting to secure backdated proxies from members! Well spotted Steve.

  5. JessK says:

    Mr. Editor, any feedback from the NHA on the deadllne extension ?

    1. Editor says:

      No word Jess

  6. Steve Reid says:

    Now that’s a huge surprise.

  7. Roderick Mattheyse says:

    the esteemed Mr Jayes was present – did he not notice that the membership was SHORT to ensure that there was no quorum?

  8. Paul says:

    I read these threads with much interest. In all honesty, I must say that I find the continued sarcasm of Mr Mattheyse most unnecessary and self-defeating (I simply cannot take anything he writes seriously, which is unfortunate as I enjoy reading disparite opinions). Mr Reid has written (when seeking to admonish the Editor) that this hyper-sarcasm results when Mr M feels pressured etc. In the above thread, though, the sarcasm appears simply gratuitious. The duty of checking that a quorum exists must surely fall on the Meeting Chair (how would members in attendance know of proxies?). For what reason is Mr Jayes identified by Mr M for particular ridicule then?

  9. Roderick Mattheyse says:

    Paul thanks May I ask what the reason is for you jumping to the defence of Mr Jayes?

    Mr Jayes is very critical of the runnings of the industry and in some instances I concur with him. But just as you don’t take me seriously due to my sarcasm I feel I cannot take Mr Jayes seriously as he has let me down as a member by allowing a meeting without a quorum continue – maybe there was a quorum – but Mr Jayes has neither confirmed or deny such.

  10. Paul says:

    I used this merely as an example, not to jump to the defence of Mr Jayes (whom I do not know from Adam) or anyone else. Surely you can make the same points without resorting to unnecessary sarcasm? I think you would then find your views being taken seriously: I for one have no issue with many of your views but only the manner of communication.

  11. Paul says:

    It is surely standard practice to record proxies in Minutes (to avoid this very type of enquiry). Who was responsible for issuing these Minutes?

Leave a Comment

‹ Previous

Cape Guineas Fields On Thursday

Next ›

Newsflash: Laff & Butcher Re-Elected

Popular Posts