SA Rugby chief executive Jurie Roux has been ordered to repay R37
million that an arbitrator has ruled to have been misappropriated during
his tenure at the Stellenbosch University.
According to https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/investigations/breaking-sa-rugby-boss-jurie-roux-ordered-to-pay-back-r37m-misappropriated-from-stellenbosch-university-20201224" rel="nofollow - News24 ,
an arbitrator found that Roux had breached the terms of his contract
with Stellenbosch University by not acting in their best interests when
he was in charge of the Maties rugby club.
Between 2002 and 2010 Roux was in charge of the club’s finances. He
served as director and then senior director of financial planning and
asset management at the university.
The money was alleged to have been used for funding aspects of the
rugby department without appropriately being allocated, which Roux
repeatedly refuted.
The arbitration into the matter eventually began at the end of 2019,
with co-accused Christiaan de Beer also implicated in the matter.
On Wednesday, advocate Alasdair Sholto-Douglas SC set down his ruling, which found against both Roux and De Beer.
‘In allocating the university’s funds to the four cost centres
(without authorisation or budgeting) constituted a breach of his
employment contract, which gave rise to the university suffering damages
in the amount alleged in the particulars of claim, namely R35 312 004.
‘I find also that he breached his contract of employment by incurring
expenditure of R1 804 398 on behalf of the university in relation to
the Western Province Rugby Institute when he was not authorised to do so
and in circumstances where the university had not in fact incurred such
an obligation,’ a statement read.
He also ordered that De Beer repay R2-million related to his involvement in misappropriating funds from the university.
SA Rugby noted the findings, stating: ‘We have referred the matter to
our legal advisers for their advice on governance matters, as we have
throughout this process.
‘We further note that the process allows for the parties to lodge an
appeal, and we will make no further comment until the outcome of any
such appeal is known.’