Home » Racing & Sport » Phumelela To Approach High Court

Phumelela To Approach High Court

Corporatisation under spotlight

In a press release published on Friday, Phumelela has confirmed having received the Public Protector’s report regarding the corporatisation of the thoroughbred horseracing industry.

Phumelela has been advised to apply to the High Court to have the report reviewed and set aside.

This application is being prepared by Phumelela’s legal representatives and will be instituted within the next few weeks.

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.

8 comments on “Phumelela To Approach High Court


    As the stomach turns, Your Worship.

    And then I’ll oppose their application to have it set aside.


    to have the report reviewed and set aside.

    The directors of Phumelela are obliged to salvage their reputation/save face for the sake of the shareholders. Sitting back and doing nothing, after been exposed by this report, implies that they are somewhat complicit.

    This application might just piss off a Judge or another party enough, for the report to be totally rubber stamped (approved) and it will definitely get more newsworthy and increase coverage on normal TV.

    Phumelela, through this application, might land up prosecuting themselves as they would have to bring evidence to discredit the detail of the reports.

    Bring it on.

  3. Steve Reid says:

    Desperate times call for desperate measures, and you don’t get more desperate than the proverbial rat in the corner it seems. There is no getting away from the accuracy in the Public Protectors report in terms of the absolute rape of resources for shareholders benefit. Tracks and land have been sold, dividends have been juicy, executives have received very generous bonuses. Through all of this, our racing has gone backwards with loss of facilities, stagnant stakes, and a continuing drop in owners and breeders numbers due to the economic realities of the changing landscape. This is all well documented and easily verifiable.

    Why Phumelela believe they have come remotely close to fulfilling their mandate in the original agreement beggars belief, and the PP is spot on in this regard. The loss of revenue to Provincial coffers to enrich a select bunch of sportsmen, one of them the biggest alleged fraudster in South African history, is an abomination and needs to be stopped immediately. It is enlighting to hear that the Steinhoff choice of legal eagles, act on behalf of Phumelela. This is no coincidence and displays without doubt where the strings are being pulled.

    Roll on Phumelela at R2 a share and hopefully some of the major players who have been shamefully silent in the midst of this Jooste takeover over the years, do they right thing and buy the looters out.

  4. Cecil Pienaar says:

    I have always had respect for the SA Justice system, slow at times, but I believe Crooks get caught eventually. I will be surprised (big time) if Phumelela is successful in their bid to set this aside —stall maybe. After reading this report, even if just a portion is true and correct, Phumelela people should be nervous. Tick Tock..

  5. Pops says:


  6. Brendon says:

    If the PGL directors don’t focus their minds on what urgently requires attention, they are accelerating towards business rescue and should familiarise themselves with their risk of potential liability in their personal capacities:
    • Breach of fiduciary duties;
    • Breach of the duty of care, skill and diligence;
    • Liability for breaching the Companies Act;
    • Liability towards the shareholders of the company; and
    • Civil liability.
    You primary responsibility is to run the business and that’s where the focus should be during this time of crisis.

    Leave the PP alone and stop allowing your legal counsel to misguide you. Based on the PP’s report, your legal counsel did not help your cause during your engagement with the PP. Had they advised your differently during the investigation, there would be less of a need to go to the High Court.

    You guys are a fantastic team at PGL , when it comes to writing profiles on each others backgrounds and achievements. Why dont you guys use some of that energy and creativity to address some of the findings in the PP report, outside the High Court.

    PGL did a rights issue not too long ago and shareholders who followed their rights did not do so to fund spurious legal battles. Cash should be conserved in light of the imminent loss of the 3% betting tax and the depressed trading conditions in the industry.

    PGL directors are reminded to reconsider their duties and responsibilities. Its not to defend the past shareholders and directors who were there since over a decade ago. Hopefully this isn’t a case of one or two directors being conflictd in this regard and are using their directorships to unduly influence PGL’s decision making. So get on with running the business. Now might be a good time to move on and let some new blood to step in.

  7. Punter says:

    I also fully agree with you Brandon, the PP Report told them what need to be done by the Shareholders to transparent the Industry, she never mentioned anything need to be reimburse by them only to focus in future and change their attitudes.

    To me if they can allow their Legal Advice to mislead them to go to Court, that will create a more problem to them because remember there is a SIU is still on line to arrest some people if any amongst them.

    So if I was one of directors of PGL, I was going to suggest that to forget about Court and focus towards the mistakes and rectify.

    I also believe that even if the SIU might come in for sure it’s going to asked them how far they are to rectify this problems, the answer will be no because they are still focused to the COURT.

    The worse part, they resist the life of the Grooms when they choose to go to Court and the resistance will create more problem to them because the Grooms are getting dying regularly and no benefits funds to assist them to anything, special when it comes to death of Groom, Retirement of Groom Injury of Groom etc.

    So I wonder if they can approach the Court anything could change a Report?


  8. Brendon says:


    Get yourself a supersized popcorn and a drink, this sitcom (created and directed by PGL) is going to have you in stiches, post the mind-boggle.

    This “new” management team (“Newbies”) of PGL had the opportunity to allow themselves and the PP to objectively review correspondence, agreements and other documentary evidence that pertain to decisions and actions taken over a decade ago, let’s just say by a collective that is long gone into the sunset.

    e.g. If, the then management (“the Oldies”) felt that they had the authority to divest Gosforth Park, Newmarket and Bloemfontein racecourses because the original agreements with Government did not specifically prohibit them from doing so, then let the Oldies take the stand in the High Court. I suspect that none of the Oldies want to be anywhere near the dock, given that the proceeds from the divestment was neither earmarked not deployed to fund the acquisition or development of a similar asset class. PGL’s decision to pay healthy bonuses to executives and management in addition to a healthy dividend distribution policy was devoid from creating value through operations but one of unlocking value on the balance sheet.

    Remember Coleman Andrews…. He did something similar at SAA (co-incidentally, in the first year after SAA was corporatised) when he sold the fleet of aircraft (an made a massive profit) and leased the fleet back at a significant premium. This move earned him a bonus of over R130m. How dissimilar are these two companies in relation to decision making, management style, value erosion and most importantly “Corporatisation” failures due to management seeking short-term gains”?
    If this matter makes it to the court room, the Newbies are going to be found wanting for the decisions of the Oldies, unless they deliver a body evidence that’s going to be a knock-out blow for all and sundry. If such evidence does indeed exist, why was it not provided to the PP during the investigation?

    My take on the Newbies posturing about…. “Phumelela has been advised to apply to the High Court to have the report reviewed and set aside”
    Is merely a precursor to managing perceptions with an imminent follow-up announcement to be released in the coming days to the contrary.

    PS. Surely, Phumelela does not want to file papers in court that will include copies of sale of immoveable property contracts and lead evidence on who did and said what (on a hear say basis), unless Jooste and his then corporatisation teammates want to take the stand.

Leave a Comment

‹ Previous

Horse Export

SAEHP Positive About Vaccine Progress

Next ›

Cheyne Hits Fairview Jackpot

Popular Posts