The case centers on a dispute between professional football player Edward Takarinda Sadomba and Club Al Ahli SC over unpaid wages following the termination of his employment contract. The parties mutually agreed to terminate the contract on January 11, 2016, with the club agreeing to pay Sadomba $450,000. However, the club claimed it had made the payment in cash, presenting a signed "cash payment order" as evidence. Sadomba argued he was misled into signing the document, believing it was a formality for a bank transfer that never occurred. He filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which rejected his claim, citing the signed cash payment order as proof of payment and placing the burden of proof on Sadomba to demonstrate non-payment.
Sadomba appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), contesting the FIFA DRC's decision. The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators Fabio Iudica, Manfred Nan, and Lucas Anderes, reviewed the case and emphasized the principle of burden of proof. They noted that the club, as the party asserting payment, should provide concrete evidence such as bank records or witness statements to substantiate the cash transaction. The panel found the cash payment order ambiguous and insufficient to prove payment, particularly given the lack of supporting documentation. The club failed to provide additional evidence or have representatives testify at the hearing, leaving Sadomba's claims unchallenged. The panel also questioned the plausibility of such a large cash payment, especially in light of Tunisia's strict currency export rules and the club's previous use of bank transfers for salary payments.
The CAS ruled in favor of Sadomba, holding the club responsible for failing to meet its financial obligations under the termination agreement. The club was ordered to pay the agreed $450,000 plus 5% annual interest from January 11, 2016, the date the payment became due. The decision underscored the importance of clear and credible evidence in contractual disputes, particularly in cases involving cash transactions. The panel also addressed Sadomba's withdrawal of certain claims, including a request for sporting sanctions against the club, and adjusted the requested legal costs to a reasonable amount. The ruling set aside the FIFA DRC's decision and dismissed all other motions, reinforcing the necessity for parties to substantiate their claims with adequate evidence. The case highlights the challenges of proving cash transactions in legal proceedings and the consequences of failing to meet evidentiary burdens.