Rollers dispute case set for 2017

SHARE   |   Monday, 12 September 2016   |   By Staff Writer

The tussle for Township Rollers control is far from over. On Friday Mookodi Seisa and others dragged Township Holdings before court for contempt of court order. The aggrieved party lodged a contempt of court case before High Court Judge Leatile Dambe after Township Holdings failed to comply with the judge’s prior judgment. Seisa and company are challenging control and ownership of the team by Township Holdings. They insist that the team should be controlled by the society instead of Township Holdings led by Jagdish Shah. Dambe had previously ruled in their favour and ordered that society be given the control of the club.

However the applicants are now still aggrieved as they say this has never happened as Shah still controls the club. The party then sort to approach the court for intervention as they feel Shah is in contempt.  The hearing of the case has been set for March 9, 2017 before Judge Dambe. Those close to Township Rollers however feels the outcome of the case will not make any difference as Shah is at Rollers to stay.  “Whether the court rules for or against the applicants it will make no difference as Shah will always be at Rollers,” said the source.

There are reports that Shah will very soon be confirmed as Township Rollers president giving him a place in the society as well. This way whether the team is given to the control of the society Shah will be part of the said society. Shah who is Rollers financier will become the president following the resignation of Dickson Gabanakgosi from the position.        

Meanwhile, Judge Dambe also on Friday heard the case in which some of Gaborone United members are questioning the legality of the team’s current committee. The applicants are therefore seeking the court to disregard the proceedings on the July 2015 AGM at which the committee was elected into office. They are arguing that the meeting was not supposed to have taken place since the quorum was not formed according to the constitution. The applicants are questioning the legality of the sitting executive committee.