The case revolves around a dispute between Cameroonian footballer Alexis Enam and Libyan club Al Ittihad Tripoli, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict stemmed from Enam's alleged failure to return to the club after being released for international duties in June 2007. Al Ittihad Tripoli filed a claim with FIFA, which ruled in May 2008 that Enam had breached his contract without just cause. FIFA ordered Enam to pay USD 45,000 in compensation and imposed a four-month restriction on his eligibility to play. Enam appealed to CAS, arguing that the decision violated the principle of res judicata (double jeopardy) and was disproportionate. He also sought a stay of the FIFA decision's execution, citing irreparable harm due to the sporting and financial consequences of the sanction.
The CAS outlined three conditions for granting a stay: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to the applicant, and a balance of interests favoring the applicant. The tribunal noted that Enam's appeal targeted FIFA's decision, not the club, meaning FIFA—not Al Ittihad—was the legitimate respondent regarding the sporting sanction. Enam's failure to name FIFA as a respondent weakened his likelihood of success. The CAS also emphasized that Swiss law requires the defending party to have a direct stake in the dispute, which the club did not in this context. While Enam argued financial and sporting harm, the tribunal found the balance of interests unclear, as the club had no role in enforcing the FIFA sanction.
The CAS examined its jurisdiction under Swiss law and its own Code, confirming its authority to order provisional measures. The analysis focused on the three key tests, with Enam's appeal deemed admissible but his additional submissions rejected as unsolicited. The respondent's late submission was accepted due to procedural delays. The Division President concluded that Enam had not demonstrated a plausible case against the sporting sanctions, as the club had no direct stake in them—only FIFA and Enam's new club, Club Africain, were affected. Since FIFA was not named as a respondent, Enam failed the likelihood of success test, rendering the other conditions irrelevant. The request for a stay was dismissed, with the ruling emphasizing that Enam could refile if FIFA became a respondent later.
The final decision upheld the original sanctions, rejecting Enam's appeal for a provisional suspension. The CAS President ruled that the request for a stay was rejected, as per Articles R37 and R52 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration. The decision is final and binding, meaning the original FIFA ruling remains in effect without temporary suspension. The case underscores the procedural and legal complexities in sports arbitration, particularly regarding the identification of proper respondents and the criteria for granting provisional measures. The dismissal of Enam's request reaffirms the enforceability of FIFA's disciplinary decisions unless compelling legal grounds for intervention are established.