A company arranging boxing matches between social media influencers may face scrutiny from the prosecuting authority and the companies regulator after the high court found the pugilist contests were unlawful.
The Pretoria high court ruled in December that the company, “Tikbox”, organised fighting events that “[had] not been legalised” and therefore warranted further investigation.
In 2022, two businessmen, Daniel van Heerden and Francois du Toit, established a company which organised boxing events for feuding SA social media influencers.
Du Toit, who claims to have had the original idea, said he noticed online feuds between popular influencers drew a lot of attention and he believed that bringing them into a boxing ring in person would be profitable.
Tikbox hosted its first event in Pretoria in March 2023 and made a profit.
Soon after, Van Heerden wanted Du Toit to be declared a delinquent director and removed from the company records. Du Toit resigned.
In October, the two men went to court in a dispute over their profit shares and which of them should be declared delinquent.
If declared delinquent, a director cannot act in that capacity for years, sometimes for life.
Acting judge Andries le Grange said in his December judgment that though the case “at first glance” seemed to be a typical quarrel between business partners, it was his duty to examine the lawfulness of the company’s fighting events.
To do this, he studied the original contract that governed Tikbox.
Le Grange noted the events being hosted basically were “duel[s]”.
Though on the surface people were “assaulting” each other, this is not a crime if it is done in terms of “a lawful sport”.
However, it was “undisputed” that “the contest [had] not been legalised” or done under boxing regulations.
Furthermore, “boxing is tightly regulated” precisely because of the dangers to life and body.
“These arranged contests,” Le Grange ruled, “are no different to that of a schoolboy witnessing classmates being involved in a verbal argument, shouting ‘fight, fight’ to encourage them to get physical and to apply bodily force to each other, recording the fight and posting it on social media with the aim to obtain responses or ‘likes’.”
Because the events were unlawful, so was the contract that governed the directors.
He therefore could not make a ruling on profits that flowed from such events or on the issue of delinquency.
The judge referred his ruling to the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission and the National Prosecuting Authority for further investigation.
The matters will be dealt with later in 2024. — BusinessLIVE