The case involves a legal dispute between Royal Wahingdoh FC and professional footballer Othello Banei, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose from a 2011 professional player contract, which was terminated in 2012 under disputed circumstances. Banei filed a complaint with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), claiming unpaid remuneration and breach of contract. Royal Wahingdoh FC did not participate in the FIFA DRC proceedings, alleging it never received correspondence from FIFA or the All India Football Federation (AIFF). In March 2014, the FIFA DRC ruled partially in Banei's favor, ordering the club to pay outstanding remuneration and compensation. The club contested the decision, claiming ignorance of the proceedings and alleging the contract was forged. Despite repeated requests for reconsideration, FIFA maintained the club had missed appeal deadlines. When the club failed to comply, Banei sought intervention from FIFA's Disciplinary Committee (DC), which imposed sanctions under Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.
Royal Wahingdoh FC appealed to CAS but incorrectly named Banei as the respondent instead of FIFA. The CAS panel ruled that only FIFA, as the enforcing body, had standing in appeals against FIFA DC decisions, not the opposing party in the original dispute. The panel also clarified that a FIFA DRC decision becomes final if grounds are not requested within the stipulated time, which the club had failed to do. Consequently, the appeal was deemed admissible but without merit due to the incorrect respondent. The CAS upheld the FIFA DC's sanctions, emphasizing compliance with FIFA decisions and proper procedural adherence.
The club further argued it was denied the opportunity to present its case before the FIFA DRC, claiming it had informally requested the decision's grounds but received no response. The panel acknowledged some merit in this argument but concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the dispute de novo or remand it to FIFA, as the FIFA DRC decision was either final or not yet finalized. The appeal against both the FIFA DC and DRC decisions was dismissed, and the original disciplinary decision was upheld. The case underscores the importance of correctly identifying the respondent in appeals and adhering to formal requirements for challenging decisions, highlighting the limitations of CAS jurisdiction when procedural steps are not properly followed.