maharaj v gold circle 31 10 12 _2 - saflii

2GROUNDS OF APPEAL:[3] The appellant’s notice of appeal sets out eight grounds of appeal. Therespondent’s categorisation of these grounds is appropriate and will, forconvenience, be adopted in this judgment. The broad categories are:(a) Alleged discrimination arising from the respondent’s:(i) refusal to lease stables to the appellant;(ii) failure to extend benefits to the appellant from the respondent’stransformation fund (which also ties up with the fifth ground ofappeal); 1(iii) refusal to allow the appellant to use the respondent’s trackfacilities from the off-limit stables available to the appellant at MrPage’s yard;(b) The respondent is not justified in relying upon the infractions which theappellant has been guilty of, when compared to that of other trainers,which the appellant contends was no different and who were dealt withless severely;(c) The respondent is, in essence, depriving the appellant of the right toearn a livelihood and practice his chosen occupation;(d) The issue of the appellant’s character had been taken into account bythe National Horse Racing Authority (“NHA”) in reissuing the appellantwith a trainer’s license; accordingly the respondent was imposing anadditional punishment on the appellant by having regard to hisconduct;(e) The court a quo erred in accepting the evidence of Ms Mnganga inconcluding that there was no discrimination in the allocation of benefitsunder the transformation fund;(f) The respondent discriminated against the appellant in the past when itdeprived the appellant of stables at Drier’s yard by giving A D Gordon,1 The grounds in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) were described in the appellant’s heads ofargument as ‘(t)he genesis of the application giving rise to this appeal ...’