Jockey Robert Khathi will probably be happy to see the back of 2023.
The journeyman rider was slapped with a 120 day suspension after his ride on Cape Eagle in the Michaelmas Handicap in October, and picked up a further two financial sanctions at Fairview on Tuesday, the third last Eastern Cape racemeeting of 2023.
Robert Khathi: a trying year – things can surely only get better in 2024 (Pic – Chase Liebenberg)
Khathi was lumbered with R13000 worth of fines after the Gqeberha racemeeting on Tuesday.
In the fourth he was charged with a contravention of Rule 58.10.2 (read with Guideline M on the use of the crop) in that as the rider of Russian Empire he misused his crop by striking the 25-1 shot more than 12 times (16) which was not warranted when considering the circumstances of the race.
He signed an admission of guilt and was fined R10 000.
Khathi was then charged with a contravention of Rule 55.4 in that he failed to weigh out at the carded weight on Symbol Of Love, or at the higher weight confirmed in his engagement with the Trainer, resulting in a change of rider in the sixth. He signed an admission of guilt and was fined R3 000.
Turf Talk reported earlier this week that attorneys acting for Khathi had launched a High Court review application against the National Horseracing Authority and CEO Vee Moodley
This is related to the 120 day suspension he was given after being found guilty of a contravention of rule 62.2.1 following an inquiry into his ride on Cape Eagle at Hollywoodbets Greyville on 15 October in the Michaelmas Handicap.
Khathi’s application to the High Court is not centred around the fairness of the inquiry outcome, but about the NHA and its CEO Vee Moodley denying him an appeal after the prescribed fee for the appeal arrived more than 48 hours late.
On 17 November he addressed an email request to the NHA asking for a copy of the transcript/recording of the inquiry and a copy of the rules (sepcifically the 62.2.1, 85.6 and 85.7) and penalty guidelines.
He received a reply on the same day saying the guidelines were attached and that a transcript would be sent when available. However, apparently the guidelines were not attached.
On 20 November Khathi again requested the guidelines and transcript.
To date he has apparently never received a response.
Khathi will claim he did not have the relevant information necessary to make a balanced decision on whether he should go ahead with the appeal or not.
As it happened he only contacted his lawyers Shepstone and Wylie for help on 20 November.
It was only then that he became aware that the prescribed fee for the appeal was due on that same day.
He had not seen the rules and guidelines and his lawyer informed him of the 20 November deadline.
Khathi’s notice of intention to appeal was duly served on the NHA by his lawyer on 20 November.
The NHA were also notified by the lawyer of Khathi’s intention to pay the fee.
Khathi will point out to the high court that the fee of R8 950 was a substantial amount and he did not have the money immediately available.
He had to raise the money through financial assistance from the Jockey Association, of which he is a member.
Khathi paid the fee on the morning of 23 November.
He had been informed by the NHA that the option to appeal had fallen away due to the non-payment of the fee.
However, Khathi, through his lawyer, then exercised rule 85.10:
The 85.10 rule reads that should a Notice of Intention to Appeal or Notice of Appeal not be lodged within the prescribed time periods, the right of appeal or the appeal as the case may be shall lapse; provided that the Chief Executive may, on written application to him, in his sole discretion and on such terms and conditions as he may determine, condone the late lodging and reinstate any appeal which has lapsed.
NHA CEO Vee Moodley responded by acknowledging receipt of the email, which requested a reinstatement of the appeal, and then stating: ‘As the payment was not made timeously I am not able to entertain the request. The directive is consistent with prior practices’.
Moodley was contacted by Turf Talk about the matter.
He pointed out the rule uses the word ‘shall’ which indicates a future obligation or requirement and not just a future action as would be the case with the word ‘will’.
He said a denial of an appeal had been made for the same reason i.e. late payment, to multiple jockeys, including S’Manga Khumalo, Chase Maujean and Dennis Schwarz.
He used the analogy of a car license where the law of the land gives a grace period of 20 days to apply for a new license, but if caught driving with an expired license after that period a policeman or judge would not entertain an explanation that there had been a lack of funds.
Khathi will claim the response from Moodley was procedurally unfair and irrational in that he did not appear to consider the merits of his particular case, and rather just referred to prior practises.
It is apparent that the finer points of the law will also be used in an attempt to establish that Khathi was unfairly denied the chance to appeal.
Moodley said he had his reasons for making the decision and they will also be presented in court.
Without an appeal, the next stage of the process is for the case to be heard by an inquiry review board.
The big difference between the latter and an appeal is that legal representation is not allowed at an inquiry review hearing.
Things can surely only improve in 2024 for the hardworking jockey!
