CGA vs SMT: Legal war erupts again as Trust drags CGA to Court

The future of the Soweto Marathon hangs in legal uncertainty after the Soweto Marathon Trust threatened to approach the High Court to interdict Central Gauteng Athletics (CGA) from interfering with the organisation of the 2026 edition of the event.

The dispute has been laid bare in a set of letters exchanged between Norman Komana Attorneys, acting for the Trust, and CGA General Manager Mandla Radebe, documents now in the possession of The Public Dispatch.

The Trust accuses CGA of removing the marathon from the official athletics fixtures calendar without lawful justification, in what it characterises as an act that will "sabotage" the event. CGA insists it acted within its governance mandate and that its decision arose from a formal Board Resolution.

The Trust's application and its abrupt withdrawal

According to Norman Komana Attorneys, the Trust applied to CGA to host the Soweto Marathon on 1 November 2026. That date was confirmed and added to the fixtures calendar, and the Trust paid the required application fee.

But on 26 March 2026, CGA informed the Trust that its application had been withdrawn and that the event would be removed from the calendar, pending further engagements. The Trust's attorney set out the sequence in the letter dated 9 April 2026:

"It is our client's instruction that they applied to yourself (CGA) for a date on which the Soweto Marathon will be hosted in 2026. The date of 1 November 2026 was confirmed and added to the fixture calendar and our client paid the necessary registration fee. On 26 March 2026, you informed our client that their application to host the Soweto Marathon has been withdrawn and that the event will be removed from the fixture calendar, pending further engagements."

The letter noted that CGA cited uncertainty regarding governance and accountability, the absence of a stable unified organising structure, and the need to ensure that the organising body meets 'the required standards of compliance, financial accountability, and athlete protection'as reasons for the withdrawal.

CGA: This is not a 'Registration Fee' and the Trust has no vested right

CGA's response, signed by Radebe and dated 17 April 2026, opened with a pointed reframing of the dispute. The federation rejected the Trust's characterisation of the payment made as a "registration fee":

"CGA does not require any entity to pay a 'registration fee' in order to be recognised by the federation. The amount referred to in your correspondence relates solely to the prescribed application fee payable when an organiser submits a race application for consideration on the official athletics fixtures calendar, in accordance with the Rules and administrative processes of CGA."

CGA emphasized that the payment carried no automatic rights:

"The payment of such application fee does not in itself constitute: approval of the event; recognition of the applicant as organiser; or a vested right to host the event."

"CGA further considers it necessary to clarify that the Soweto Marathon is historically owned by the clubs of Soweto, who remain the custodians of the event and its legacy. The Soweto Marathon Trust serves as the vehicle through which the race has historically been organised and administered, but such role does not remove the responsibility of CGA to ensure that the event is conducted in a manner consistent with the governance standards of the sport." reads CGA letter.

The governance reset and a board resolution

CGA grounded its intervention in an existing Memorandum of Understanding and what it described as a broader "Governance Reset" adopted by its Board. CGA's letter read:

"In terms of the existing Memorandum of Understanding, CGA is specifically required to maintain adequate systems and mechanisms to hold organisers of athletics events accountable, financially and otherwise, in order to ensure, among other things, that proceeds from athletics events within its jurisdiction are used solely for the development and advancement of athletics."

The decision to withdraw the Trust's application, CGA said, arose from a Board Resolution adopted on 25 March 2026. The federation cited four factors:

• The ongoing governance instability surrounding the Soweto Marathon;

• The emergence of competing entities claiming authority over the event;

• The absence of a stable and unified organising structure;

• and the need to protect athletes and preserve the integrity of the event.

CGA nevertheless expressed willingness to engage:

"CGA remains open to constructive engagement with the Trust and with the affiliated Soweto clubs, with the objective of restoring the standing of the Soweto Marathon in a manner that protects athletes and preserves the dignity of all stakeholders involved. Should your client wish to engage further, CGA remains available to facilitate such discussions through the appropriate governance channels."

The SMT: We are the legal owner and we're going to Court

The Trust rejected CGA's framing in unambiguous terms. Norman Komana Attorneys asserted that a court had already settled the question of ownership:

"For the avoidance of doubt, the Soweto Marathon Trust is the legal and rightful owner and custodian of the Soweto Marathon. The trust was set up on behalf of the clubs in Soweto precisely for this purpose. This is an issue that has been settled by the Court."

The Trust also found it contradictory that CGA would profess concern for the marathon's integrity while simultaneously acting to disrupt the 2026 edition:

"Your letter also indicates a concern for the restoration and preservation of the integrity and standing of the Soweto Marathon. Our client agrees fully that this should be the focus of any engagements or actions in regard to this subject. It therefore seems odd that you are choosing a course of action that will sabotage or interfere with the organisation of the 2026 edition of the event."

The Trust then issued a direct legal warning:

"Indeed, we are in the process of preparing an application to the High Court on behalf of our client to interdict any structure, entity or company from interfering with the future organisation of the event, or from attempting to usurp the organisation and running of the event from our client. This will be filed presently."

Five questions CGA has not yet answered

In its 9 April letter, Norman Komana Attorneys put five specific questions to CGA, demanding responses by 15 April 2026 or threatening litigation. CGA's reply, dated 17 April, two days after that deadline did not provide direct answers to any of them. The questions were:

• 9.1. what the role of CGA is in relation to governance and accountability when it comes to the organisation of events such as the Soweto Marathon;

• 9.2. which required standards of, specifically, compliance and financial accountability an organising body for an event such as the Soweto Marathon must meet;

• 9.3. which CGA rules and requirements and/or regulatory compliance obligations an organising body must meet with regard to race date applications;

• 9.4. precisely which standards of compliance, accountability or financial accountability, CGA rules and requirements, or regulatory compliance obligations the Soweto Marathon Trust has failed to meet; and

• 9.5. what will happen to the registration fee already paid by the Soweto Marathon Trust.

The Trust had also called on CGA to restore the marathon to the fixtures calendar immediately. CGA's letter did not do so.

CGA moves to brief Soweto Clubs but the date does not add up

A third document in The Public Dispatch's possession reveals that CGA subsequently wrote to all Soweto Marathon beneficiary clubs to brief them on the dispute and invite them to an engagement meeting. The letter, signed by Radebe and dated 29 May 2026, states:

"Following the recent communication issued by Central Gauteng Athletics regarding the de-sanctioning of the Soweto Marathon, the CGA Board wishes to formally invite all Soweto athletics clubs to participate in an engagement regarding the current status of the race and the way forward."

The letter is notable for two reasons. First, it is the first document in which CGA uses the word "de-sanctioning" to describe its decision, a materially stronger term than the language used in correspondence with the Trust's attorneys, where the federation spoke only of withdrawing a race application.

De-sanctioning implies a revocation of formal recognition, with broader consequences for the event's standing.

Second, the letter contains a significant date anomaly. It is dated 29 May 2026 but invites clubs to a meeting scheduled for 10 May 2026, nineteen days earlier. The letter also confirms that CGA has acknowledged receiving the Trust's letter of demand and chose to brief the clubs on that development directly:

"The CGA Board further wishes to advise that subsequent to the de-sanctioning decision, CGA has received a formal letter of demand from the attorneys representing the Soweto Marathon Trust. This development has further highlighted the need for open engagement with the Soweto clubs to ensure that all stakeholders are properly informed of the circumstances and implications arising from the matter."

On the unpaid prize money, a separate but related controversy that has drawn public criticism from athletes including Gerda Steyn, CGA took a firm position in the clubs letter:

"One of the immediate concerns remains the outstanding settlement of prize monies due to athletes. CGA's view is that the payment of prize monies is a fundamental obligation and an important matter of athlete protection."

The stated purposes of the meeting were to provide clarity on the de-sanctioning decision, inform clubs of the legal correspondence received, discuss unpaid prize money, hear the clubs' views, and "consider a responsible and sustainable way forward."

What happens next

The Soweto Marathon has been held annually since 1991 and draws tens of thousands of runners across its various distances. The 2026 edition is scheduled for 1 November but whether it proceeds, under whose authority, and after what legal proceedings, remains unresolved.

Three documents. Three layers of the same crisis. The Trust says it is going to court. CGA says it is open to engagement. The clubs have been called to a meeting that, on the face of the letter, may already have happened. And the athletes who ran the 2025 race are still waiting to be paid.

NB: SEE THE LETTERS IN OUR EVIDENCE LOCKER