Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

South Africa

South Africa, Sport

Swimming South Africa may have sunk its legal case against South Africa Water Polo

Swimming South Africa may have sunk its legal case against South Africa Water Polo
South African Women’s head water polo coach Nicola Barrett talks to her players during the World Aquatics Championships match against Italy on 18 July 2023 in Fukuoka, Japan. (Photo: Albert ten Hove / Orange Pictures)
Keanan Hemmonsbey
By Keanan Hemmonsbey
15 May 2025
Facebook
1
The decision on Swimming South Africa’s attempted interdict against the newly formed South Africa Water Polo is pending after blunders blight the national federation’s case.

Swimming South Africa appears to have sunk its Western Cape Division of the High Court case in an attempt to interdict the newly formed South Africa Water Polo.

There were several blunders in both Swimming SA’s heads of argument, written and sent to the court before the court date, as well as its lawyer’s defence set out before Judge Judith Cloete on Wednesday.

swimming sa water polo Dane Tucker Dane Tucker of South Africa in action during the World Aquatics Men’s Water Polo World Cup against New Zealand on 7 May 2023 in Berlin, Germany. (Photo: Maja Hitij / Getty Images)



Towards the end of proceedings, Swimming SA conceded that SA Water Polo did not need its consent to exist, practically relinquishing the original reason for its request for an interdict against the water polo body.

Swimming SA also did not stipulate in its heads of argument which statutory right, which forms the basis of its case, SA Water Polo transgressed.

Later, Swimming SA stated that SA Water Polo was passing itself off as the governing body for water polo. It simultaneously claimed that SA Water Polo was a body parallel to Swimming SA. Judge Cloete said the statements were contradictory.

After a back-and-forth, Swimming SA submitted that only the latter was true, that SA Water Polo was a parallel body and was not passing itself off as the administrator of the sport.

Sinking defence


Swimming SA, in its argument, referred to Section 1 of the National Sport and Recreation Act 110 of 1998 (NSRA Act) in its defence.

The NSRA defines a national federation as the national governing body for a code of sport “recognised by the relevant controlling international … body as the only authority for the administration and control of the relative code of sport … in the Republic”.

But Judge Cloete contended that SA Water Polo had never purported to be a national federation, but instead, a national body. The difference was that there could be only one national federation, but several national bodies. An organisation also first became a national body before becoming a national federation.

swimming south africa water polo South African Women’s head water polo coach Nicola Barrett talks to her players during the World Aquatics Championships match against Italy on 18 July 2023 in Fukuoka, Japan. (Photo: Albert ten Hove / Orange Pictures)



Swimming SA attempted to argue the merits of SA Water Polo’s future application for membership of World Aquatics, but the judge ruled this as irrelevant to the current court case, and something that World Aquatics would have to decide on.

Judge Cloete continually asked Swimming SA’s lawyers which law stated that there could be no other national body besides itself.

Swimming SA eventually concurred that a separate national body was permitted to exist, “but it won’t get [SA Water Polo] anywhere”. The judge asked: given Swimming SA’s acceptance of SA Water Polo as a national body, why then was Swimming SA asking for an interdict against SA Water Polo if it recognised its right to exist?

The court proceedings began with Swimming SA claiming that SA Water Polo should not be allowed to exist, but after Swimming SA could not cite laws inhibiting SA Water Polo’s existence, it moved on to arguing that SA Water Polo’s existence came with “consequences”.

The consequences, Swimming SA said, included that members of SA Water Polo would not qualify for provincial or national representation because they would not be members of the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (Sascoc).

Swimming SA also argued that SA Water Polo members would be unable to participate in organised water polo events such as the Olympic Games and the World Championships because it was not yet a registered member of World Aquatics.

The World Aquatics Championships are set to take place in Singapore in July 2025.

Swimming SA argued that SA Water Polo had disrupted the preparation for this event, in which the national men’s and women’s water polo teams were expected to participate.

Constitutional rights


Swimming SA said that SA Water Polo had interfered with Swimming SA’s governance and administration of the sport by urging its water polo members to join SA Water Polo.

SA Water Polo used section 18 of the South African Constitution dealing with the freedom of association in its defence.

Section 18 encompasses both an individual’s right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria.

SA Water Polo argued that neither the NSRA Act nor Sascoc’s constitution inhibited SA Water Polo from existing, which meant that Swimming SA was not entitled to an interdict.

SA Water Polo’s lawyers used a letter of intent, published on 19 March – which had prompted Swimming SA to seek the interdict – as the basis of its argument that the water polo body was not attempting to usurp Swimming SA, as claimed.

There was no evidence, based on the letter of intent, that SA Water Polo had attempted to usurp SA Swimming, the lawyers submitted.

Members


When Judge Cloete requested evidence that SA Water Polo had claimed to be the administrators of water polo in the country, Swimming SA indicated that members had left its federation to join SA Water Polo.

Judge Cloete said that regardless of her decision, she could not force members to rejoin Swimming SA because they were not party to the court proceedings.

She said that no evidence had been provided by Swimming SA on why those members had “jumped pool”, so SA Water Polo could not be blamed.

A decision on Swimming SA’s urgent cease-and-desist application could take as long as three months. DM

Categories:

Tags: