Post by Southern African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII)

VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION AND DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS The Divine Life Society of South Africa (the Society), a voluntary religious association governed by a constitution, conducted disciplinary proceedings against Mr Parshotam, a renunciant member residing in its ashram. The Board of Management charged Mr Parshotam with several alleged infractions and, after a hearing, found him guilty and expelled him from the Society with additional sanctions. Mr Parshotam challenged both the findings and sanctions, contending that the Board was not lawfully constituted and that the proceedings were procedurally unfair. The Society opposed the review and sought his eviction. The High Court set aside the Board’s decisions, holding that the Board was improperly constituted for failure to include renunciants, but declined to grant declaratory relief on natural justice. The Society appealed, and Mr Parshotam cross-appealed. The Court interpreted the Society’s constitution, particularly whether appendices recording past Board decisions formed binding constitutional provisions. It rejected the view that a requirement for renunciants on the Board was constitutionally entrenched, finding the appendices were merely historical guidance. The Court further considered the application of natural justice in voluntary associations, confirming that disciplinary decisions are reviewable where they violate fundamental fairness, as recognised in Turner v Jockey Club. It examined whether the Board gave adequate notice of charges, allowed proper confrontation of evidence, and maintained impartiality, emphasising that even in non‑adversarial contexts fairness requires clarity of charges, opportunity to respond, and separation of investigative and adjudicative roles. The Board was lawfully constituted under the Society’s constitution and that the High Court erred on this issue. However, it found that the disciplinary proceedings were procedurally unfair. Mr Parshotam was not given adequate prior notice of charges, was denied the opportunity to confront and test evidence, and the Board failed to adduce evidence before requiring him to respond. Moreover, the same Board members investigated, prosecuted and adjudicated the matter, creating a reasonable apprehension of bias and breaching the duty of impartiality. These defects violated the rules of natural justice and rendered the disciplinary decisions unlawful. Declaratory relief was refused on the basis that it would address abstract issues without a live dispute. The appropriate remedy was to set aside the decisions and remit the matter to the Society. The appeal is dismissed with costs; the High Court’s order is amended to remit the disciplinary proceedings to the Society; and the cross‑appeal is dismissed with costs. Divine Life Society of South Africa and Others v Avinash Parshotam (107/2025) [2026] ZASCA 89 (24 June 2026) https://lnkd.in/dVjWdwWE