The case involves a dispute between the Football Kenya Federation (FKF) and the Confederation of African Football (CAF) over the qualification of Kenya's national women's football team for the 2018 African Women’s Cup of Nations (AWCON). The conflict arose after Kenya initially qualified for the tournament following the disqualification of Equatorial Guinea due to the use of an ineligible player, Annette Jacky Messomo. The CAF Disciplinary Board ruled Messomo ineligible, disqualifying Equatorial Guinea and allowing Kenya to take their place. However, the CAF Appeal Board later overturned this decision after receiving new evidence confirming Messomo’s eligibility, including her Equatoguinean nationality and confirmation from the Cameroonian Football Federation that she had never played for Cameroon. This reversal reinstated Equatorial Guinea and excluded Kenya from the tournament.
The FKF appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), initially seeking reinstatement to AWCON 2018 but later shifting their request to financial compensation for expenses incurred in preparing for the tournament. The FKF argued that CAF failed to inform them of Equatorial Guinea's appeal, leaving them unaware of the proceedings until the decision was finalized. They also claimed moral damages for the emotional and reputational harm caused by their exclusion, which was their first opportunity to compete in the tournament. The FKF sought reimbursement for expenses totaling KES 18,089,910 and compensation for moral damages, citing CAF's negligence and breach of duty.
CAF countered that the FKF failed to challenge the appealed decision directly, instead focusing on financial and moral damages without proving the decision was incorrect or fraudulent. CAF argued there was no regulatory obligation to inform the FKF of the appeal process and that the FKF's claims were unfounded. They also contended that the FKF was at fault for preparing for the tournament without certainty of participation and did not demonstrate any unlawful act or fault by CAF.
The CAS Panel reviewed the case de novo, examining the matter afresh without being bound by prior procedural defects. It found that while CAF's handling of the process was flawed, the FKF had not substantiated their claims or demonstrated any error in the Appeal Board’s decision. The Panel noted that the FKF did not challenge the Appeal Board’s findings on Messomo’s eligibility and failed to provide evidence or arguments to dispute the decision. Ultimately, the Panel dismissed FKF’s appeal, upholding the CAF Appeal Board’s decision and rejecting FKF’s financial claims. The Panel acknowledged FKF’s frustration with CAF’s administrative shortcomings but concluded that the appeal lacked merit.
The final ruling, issued on February 20, 2020, dismissed FKF’s appeal entirely and upheld the original decision. The case underscores the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in sports governance, as well as the challenges of substantiating claims for financial and moral damages in arbitration. The outcome highlights the need for clear communication and adherence to regulatory frameworks in resolving disputes within international sports organizations.