The society held a general meeting last weekend and among the resolutions taken was to lock up the venue as the battle between the two camps persists.
The reason for the decision, they said, was to allow the interim executive committee to come up with fees for its use so that the society can generate income. At the meeting, interim chairperson, Victor Kobe informed the supporters that the records still show that the ground belongs to the society.
He said they went to the Land Board and found that there was an application by some individuals at the company to transfer the property to the company. He also assured them that the Land Board did not approve the application since there was no resolution from the general membership to that effect. However, the company spokesperson, Ontlametse Letsholo yesterday said the ground, together with other properties, has been transferred to the company. He said there is no how the ground can be locked up and expect its use without any problems.
He said at the moment the team is using the ground for its training sessions ahead of the start of the season. “That ground has been transferred to us and we do not know how they are going to do that (lock up the ground),” he said.
Letsholo said with the Debswana First Division South League expected to commence in a few weeks, River Plate will be Magosi’s home ground. The two warring factions are expected to battle it out in court after the society representatives vowed to push ahead with the case. They lost the preliminary round when the High Court ruled that the matter will not be treated as an urgent application.
Ahead of last weekend's meeting, the company representatives threatened to take action over what they called the use of their trademark by the society in issuing media statements and releases.
Yesterday, Letsholo said they have since spoken to their legal team about what transpired at Segale Primary School last Saturday. He said the company’s legal team will advise on the way forward, particularly on what he called a contravention of their trademark.
The society, on the other hand, is adamant that the rival camp obtained the trademark fraudulently and wants the court to overturn the decision.
