The Botswana Football Association (BFA) once again prevailed over former Botswana Premier League (BPL) chief executive officer, Bennett Mamelodi when the Court of Appeal dismissed his application with costs. Mamelodi had challenged findings by South African firm, ADM Financial Forensic Services.
The forensic findings of the audit report were instituted by the BFA, which is cited as the first respondent.
BFA had commissioned the audit report for the purposes of a disciplinary hearing against Mamelodi. He was later asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Mamelodi, however, challenged the findings of the forensic audit and while the application was still pending before the High Court at the time, the association terminated his contract.
In his ruling on Friday, Justice Zibani Makhwade said it is common cause that the forensic report is no longer relevant in as far it was the basis for disciplinary action against Mamelodi. He said the purpose of the application was to prevent the use of forensic report in the disciplinary hearing. “By virtue of the fact that the employment contract was terminated, there is no longer a purpose in the orders sought. The matter has become moot,” Makhwade said. Mamelodi had also submitted that the investigations carried out seriously maligned him and placed his
The Court of Appeal then ruled that the fears he expressed are not well founded since the forensic report was an internal document, which was not meant for public distribution.
“There is no suggestion that the first respondent was responsible for its publication. On the contrary, the first respondent (BFA) regretted that it ended up being published,” the ruling stated. Justice Makhwade added that Mamelodi was not found guilty of any misconduct and that what appeared in the forensic report were allegations. “He was subsequently charged but the charges were not proceeded with. There is therefore no record of wrongdoing that anyone can use against the appellant. In my view this is not an appropriate case for the court to proceed with determination of an issue that is moot. It serves no purpose,” he said.