The three applicants were members of the exclusive 'Links Golf Club', an elite golf course owned and operated by the first respondent (Plattner Golf (Pty) Ltd). Membership of this club is by invitation only and is entirely separate from their memberships in two other golf courses within the larger Fancourt complex, which they hold by virtue of home ownership in the estate. The controlling mind behind the first respondent is Dr Plattner, a businessman who personally decided who receives invitations to join the Links. The applicants had been members for between 10 and 20 years, were in good standing, and had complied with all financial obligations. In March 2022, during a crucial annual general meeting of the Fancourt Master Homeowners Association—where the applicants were directors involved in an ongoing arbitration against the first respondent—the applicants received letters terminating their Links memberships. The stated reason was that they had spurned the friendship of Dr Plattner, his family, and the first respondent. No hearing was afforded to the applicants prior to this termination. After the applicants challenged the termination, the first respondent reinstated their memberships but immediately suspended them, alleging that they had engaged in 'unseemly and irresponsible' or 'improper or dishonest' conduct—a new, unspecified basis for action. The suspension again occurred without a hearing. The applicants sought to have the suspension reviewed and set aside, and to have a disciplinary hearing conducted by an independent third party (the second respondent, a senior counsel) who would have full decision-making authority, not merely recommendatory powers.
1. The first respondent's suspension of the applicants' golf memberships in and to the 'Links Golf Club' was reviewed and set aside with immediate effect. 2. The first respondent was ordered to restore the applicants' golf memberships and privileges with immediate effect. 3. The first respondent may not itself suspend or terminate the applicants' memberships based on the conduct alleged in the specified annexures. 4. The first respondent may refer the matter to an independent third party with full decision-making authority to determine whether to suspend, terminate, or sanction the applicants based on the alleged conduct. 5. The first respondent was ordered to pay the applicants' costs, including the costs of two counsel where employed.
1. Where the rules of a private club specify the grounds on which a member's membership may be terminated, the club may not terminate membership on grounds not contemplated in the rules. 2. The principles of natural justice require that a member be afforded a fair hearing before their membership is terminated or suspended, particularly where the rules expressly provide for such a hearing. 3. Fundamental bias involving pre-judgment of an issue cannot be excluded by contract or by the rules of a private association; natural justice and the right to an impartial decision-maker will trump any contractual provision purporting to exclude accountability for biased conduct. 4. Decisions by private domestic tribunals that have significant effects on individuals are subject to the fundamental principles of justice, requiring fair procedure, impartiality, and good faith.
The court observed that many golf clubs have as their principal object the promotion of sportsmanship, fair play and camaraderie, and that this ethos should apply equally to the management of golf clubs, whose personnel must act with honesty and integrity. The court also noted that it was difficult to understand how one can have a 'golfing friendship' with an incorporated company. The court further commented on the 'draconian' provision in the rules that deprived members of any right of appeal, review, or claim for damages following termination or suspension.
This case affirms that private clubs and associations in South Africa are bound by the principles of natural justice when making decisions that materially affect their members' rights, and that contractual provisions purporting to exclude review or the right to a fair hearing will not be enforced where fundamental bias or procedural unfairness is established. The judgment clarifies that a promise not to be biased does not cure actual bias, and that the courts will intervene to protect members against arbitrary, whimsical decisions by controlling minds of private entities. The case is also significant for its application of administrative law principles to the actions of private bodies exercising disciplinary powers.