On the morning of Sunday, 19 October 2025, the much-anticipated Sanlam Cape Town Marathon was suddenly cancelled due to infrastructure and route damage caused by dangerously high winds.         

The decision followed emergency consultations between the race organisers and the Joint Operations Committee (JOC) — comprising the City of Cape Town’s Disaster Risk Management, Safety and Security Services, medical teams, and the South African Police Service (SAPS).

At 4:45am, just an hour and a half before the race was set to start, officials deemed both the route and the start/finish venue unsafe for runners and spectators.

While the decision was made in the interest of safety, it understandably left thousands of local and international athletes disappointed — many of whom had trained for months and travelled great distances to take part.

Shortly after the announcement, Sanlam, the event’s title sponsor, confirmed that it would offer every 2025 marathon entrant a sponsored entry for either the 2026 or 2027 Sanlam Cape Town Marathon — a generous gesture that helped soften the blow.

Understanding the Legal Position

By registering for the marathon, participants entered into a contract with Asem Running (Pty) Ltd, the official event organiser. This relationship is governed by the “Cape Town Marathon Limitation of Liability and Indemnity and General Terms”, which all entrants accepted during registration.

Under Clause 7 of these terms, participants explicitly indemnify the organisers, sponsors, and affiliates against any claims for loss, damage, or costs, and the organisers expressly exclude liability for indirect or consequential losses. The clause further states that the event is organised on a “reasonable effort” basis, meaning that unforeseen cancellations — even at the last minute — do not give rise to legal liability.

Put simply: if the event is cancelled for reasons beyond the organisers’ control, such as weather or safety risks, participants cannot claim refunds or compensation.

The Role of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA)

The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) protects consumers from unfair or misleading terms but also allows service providers to limit their liability — provided those limitations are clearly stated and accepted.

In this case:

• The terms were clearly displayed in bold capital letters,
• Entrants accepted them when registering, and
• The decision to cancel was made in consultation with public safety authorities.

Given these facts, the organisers appear to have acted reasonably and lawfully. The no-refund policy would likely hold up under the CPA, as public safety concerns justify the decision.

What About Travel and Accommodation Costs?

Many runners have also asked whether they can recover travel and accommodation expenses. Unfortunately, these costs are classified as indirect or consequential losses, which are expressly excluded under the event’s terms.

The organisers and sponsors cannot be held liable for expenses arising from third-party contracts such as flights, hotels, or transport. Unless runners had travel insurance that covered event cancellations, these costs would remain their own responsibility.

Could the Organisers Have Been Better Prepared?

This is where the real debate begins. Cape Town is famously known for its strong and unpredictable winds, especially in spring — a factor that has historically affected outdoor events in the city.

While the cancellation appears to have been made in good faith after consultation with the JOC and safety officials, some may reasonably ask whether more robust contingency planning should have been in place.
For example:

• Could the race infrastructure (tents, barriers, and signage) have been designed to withstand stronger winds?
• Should alternative start times or routes have been planned for severe weather scenarios?

If it were ever shown that the organisers failed to take such foreseeable conditions into account, there could theoretically be an argument of negligence or inadequate preparation. However, from a legal perspective, the decision still appears to have been made within the scope of the organisers’ duty of care and in compliance with safety regulations.

Sanlam’s Goodwill Gesture

Sanlam’s decision to provide free entries for future races goes beyond any legal obligation. It reflects a commendable effort to restore goodwill among runners and uphold the event’s reputation as a world-class marathon that values its participants.

Such proactive engagement is not only good business but also a reminder of how corporate sponsors can help preserve community trust even in difficult situations.

Dispute Resolution and Jurisdiction

Under Clause 12 of the marathon terms, any disputes must first be resolved through negotiation or mediation, and failing that, through arbitration by the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa (AFSA).
Only urgent matters can be taken to court. The agreement is governed by South African law, and any proceedings would fall under the jurisdiction of South African courts.

Practical Guidance for Affected Participants

If you were one of the affected 2025 entrants:

1. Keep proof of entry and any official communications.
2. Monitor updates from the marathon organisers or Sanlam regarding the 2026/2027 sponsored entry process.
3. Review your travel insurance for cancellation coverage.
4. Engage with the organisers in writing if clarification is needed.
5. Seek legal advice only if you have reason to believe there was negligence or breach of contract.

Conclusion

The 2025 Sanlam Cape Town Marathon cancellation was an unfortunate event that appears to have been made in good faith and in accordance with safety protocols.
The organisers acted within their legal rights under the contract and the Consumer Protection Act, and Sanlam’s decision to sponsor future entries demonstrates admirable corporate responsibility.

Still, the situation raises valid questions about event preparedness in Cape Town’s well-known windy conditions and whether more resilient planning could prevent similar disruptions in future.

What are your thoughts?
Could the organisers have better prepared for the severe weather conditions that are typical of Cape Town — or was cancelling the only responsible decision under the circumstances?

Share your views with us below.

This article is published by Henk Scheepers Inc. for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For tailored advice regarding contractual disputes or consumer rights, please contact our offices.