Matlama FC lost appeal case

The LeFA Appeals Board judgment as delivered on Monday 24th August 2020, in the Matlama FC vs. LeFA and Others.

The case was heard on the 17th August 2020.

Adv SELIMO read out the judgment and highlighted the following,

1. That the decision is unanimous.

2. That the Appeal is against the Judgment of the DISPROCO in July 2020.

3. The crux of the appeal of Matlama FC is that the DISPROCO erred when it ruled against Matlama where Matlama had submitted that LeFA had acted against its legal instruments when it ended the season and declared Bantu as the EPL Champions and that LeFA acted arbitrarily (without consultation) to end the 2019-2020 Season.  Initially the appeal also included the submission that LeFA NEC did not have a quorum when resolving to end the league. This was however withdrawn.

4. For the postponement of the case, the Appellant was fined M3, 000.00 to be shared among the respondents.

5. Regarding the submission that LeFA acted inconsistent with its statutes, the Appeals Board is not convinced that LeFA acted inconsistent with its Statutes and Regulations

6. The Appeals Board is convinced that LeFA acted appropriately on the basis of Article 50 of the LeFA Statutes.

7. The court rules that specific provisions of the Statutes over ride some regulations as if the situation under the Covid Pandemic should be considered as normal.

8. As to whether the decision to end the Season has been fair, the Appeals Board rules that Matlama failed to illustrate that they suffered any prejudice by the resolution of the NEC. Given that enough consultations were undertaken by the NEC even when it was not binding. Matlama were part of the consultations from the start, Matlama had a lot of time to argue the fairness issue of the NEC resolution.

9. The panel reiterates that the NEC resolved accordingly and had indeed exercised adequate consultation with among others Matlama FC as well as other stakeholders.

10. The Appeal Board upheld the DISPROCO judgement. The matter is dismissed therefore.

No order of costs save for the costs of postponing the matter. 


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close