The Johannesburg High Court has upheld Athletics South Africa’s lifetime bans on two former Soweto Marathon Trust trustees and ordered their removal from the trust.
Judge Lebogang Modiba dismissed Benjamin Khunou and David Sathikge’s application to overturn the bans imposed by ASA on 6 July 2023.
The court also granted a counter-application by ASA, Central Gauteng Athletics (CGA) and fellow trustees James Masilo and Marguerite Maruta to remove Khunou and Sathikge as trustees under the Trust Property Control Act.
The judgment was handed down on 20 October 2026.
Khunou and Sathikge must stop acting in any official capacity in their athletics clubs while the bans remain in force. They were also ordered to pay the legal costs.
The dispute arose from a fight between the Soweto Marathon Trust and ASA over broadcasting rights to the Soweto Marathon.
ASA found the two trustees guilty of misconduct in March 2023.
They subsequently lost an internal appeal before being expelled from athletics.
Khunou and Sathikge challenged ASA’s authority to discipline them, arguing that their conduct took place in their capacity as trustees of a separate body rather than as members of ASA.
The court rejected that argument, finding that the trust could act only through its trustees because a trust is not a separate legal person.
Their conduct as trustees could therefore not be separated from them personally, the court found.
The judge concluded that ASA had the authority to discipline the pair and prohibit them from participating in athletics administration.
The court also found that the two had approached it prematurely. Rather than immediately launching a court challenge, they should first have pursued arbitration under ASA’s constitution or used the dispute-resolution process provided for in the National Sport and Recreation Act.
“The review is therefore premature and falls to be dismissed on that ground alone,” Modiba said.
On their removal as trustees, the judge said the trust existed to advance athletics in Soweto, making the continued occupation of office by two people barred from participating in athletics administration incompatible with its purpose.
“Whatever the merits of the disciplinary decision, their continued occupation of office, while barred from participating in the very sphere of activity the SMT exists to promote, is inimical to its effective administration and the achievement of its objects,” she said.
The court also found that ASA had a direct interest in the trust because the Soweto Marathon relies on ASA’s sanctioning to retain its professional status.
However, Khunou and Sathikge succeeded on some legal arguments.
The judge found that ASA’s disciplinary decision constituted administrative action under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), meaning it was subject to judicial review. The court also rejected ASA’s argument that the pair had unreasonably delayed in bringing their challenge.
Modiba refused to order punitive costs against the two, finding no evidence that they had acted in bad faith.
Their challenge to ASA’s authority over trustees, she said, “warranted judicial consideration”.
The judgment upholds the lifetime bans and removes the two men as trustees.
It does not, however, mean the court found that every aspect of ASA’s disciplinary process was beyond legal scrutiny, the judge expressly recognised that the decision was reviewable under PAJA.