The case involves a complex legal dispute between Nile Sports Club (Hasaheisa) and the Sudanese Football Association (SFA) along with Al-Hilal Sports Club, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict originated from a football match scheduled for February 2, 2008, which did not take place due to Al-Hilal's failure to appear, citing the retention of their players' passports by the SFA over a controversy involving the naturalization of two players. The Sudanese Minister of Culture, Youth, and Sports intervened with Ministerial Decision No 8/2008, ordering the match to be rescheduled and addressing the passport and naturalization issues. The SFA complied with most directives but delegated the rescheduling to its Organizing Committee, which later declared Nile Sports Club the winner by default (2-0). Al-Hilal did not appeal this decision.
Subsequently, the Minister issued Decision No 44/2008, overruling the Organizing Committee’s decision and imposing sanctions on the SFA, including canceling the 2008 Super League season. The SFA appealed to an administrative court, which temporarily stayed the league cancellation. FIFA intervened, demanding the withdrawal of both ministerial decisions. Meanwhile, Al-Hilal threatened to withdraw from the league unless the match was rescheduled, and most Super League clubs petitioned the SFA to review the Organizing Committee’s decision, citing national interest. On September 6, 2008, Al-Hilal appealed to the SFA’s High Appeals Committee (HAC), which ruled in Decision No 7/2008 that the match should be rescheduled and referred the matter back to the Organizing Committee for implementation. The HAC determined that Ministerial Decision No 8/2008 was binding under Sudanese law, as the SFA had not challenged it earlier.
The case was brought before CAS, which addressed key legal questions: whether the HAC’s ruling constituted a formal decision, whether internal remedies were exhausted, and whether Nile Sports Club had standing to sue. The CAS panel concluded that the HAC’s ruling was indeed a decision with legal consequences and that internal remedies were exhausted since the Organizing Committee had no discretion to alter the HAC’s decision. Regarding standing, the CAS found that Nile Sports Club had a protectable interest but noted the doctrine of "venire contra factum proprium," which prevents a party from changing its position to another’s detriment after creating legitimate expectations. The CAS upheld the HAC’s decision, emphasizing the binding nature of the ministerial order and the procedural correctness of the internal appeals process.
The case also highlighted jurisdictional issues, as the Panel examined whether CAS had authority under the SFA Statutes. It found that CAS jurisdiction under Article 227 applied only to appeals against FIFA decisions, not those from the SFA’s HAC. However, the Panel noted that parties could submit to CAS jurisdiction through a specific arbitration agreement. While the SFA had accepted CAS jurisdiction by participating in the proceedings, Al-Hilal had not, leading the Panel to dismiss jurisdiction over Al-Hilal. Procedural matters, such as the Appellant’s delayed submission of its appeal brief, were addressed, with the Panel accepting the late filing due to the lack of objection from the SFA.
On the merits, the Panel ruled that the Appellant lacked standing due to inconsistencies in its arguments and failure to provide convincing evidence, such as proof of playing the rescheduled match under protest. The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction over the SFA but dismissed the appeal against Al-Hilal and upheld the SFA’s original ruling. The case underscores the intersection of sports governance, administrative law, and legal principles like estoppel, while emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and coherent legal arguments in CAS arbitration. The final decision was issued on September 4, 2009, resolving the dispute based on the written evidence and legal arguments presented.