The case revolves around a contractual dispute between professional football player Maqbull Abdi Karim and Gor Mahia Football Club. The player entered into a four-year employment agreement with the club in January 2017, which included a monthly salary and additional allowances. After being loaned to other clubs in mid-2017, the player alleged that the club breached the contract by failing to pay his salary from January to March 2018 and preventing him from training. He filed a claim with Kenya's Sports Dispute Tribunal (SDT), which ruled in November 2018 that the club had not breached the contract and dismissed the player's claims. The player then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in December 2018, requesting a sole arbitrator. The club failed to file a timely response, leading CAS to appoint André Brantjes as the sole arbitrator in February 2019. The club later objected to CAS jurisdiction and requested a hearing to cross-examine the player, but its submissions were deemed untimely and non-compliant with procedural rules. Despite the club's last-minute request to adjourn the hearing due to its counsel's illness, the hearing proceeded on May 21, 2019, without the club's participation. The player testified via videoconference, and the sole arbitrator examined the evidence and arguments.
The key legal issues addressed were CAS's jurisdiction and the applicability of FIFA statutes in domestic disputes. The sole arbitrator emphasized that CAS must independently examine its jurisdiction, even if a respondent's defense is untimely. Article 58(1) of the FIFA Statutes does not automatically grant CAS jurisdiction in domestic matters unless incorporated into national federation rules. The case highlighted procedural challenges, including the club's failure to adhere to deadlines and its subsequent exclusion from parts of the proceedings. The player sought relief for breaches of his employment contract, including unpaid salaries and wrongful termination, requesting compensation for lost income and legal costs. The club failed to file a timely answer, as required by the CAS Code. The applicable law was determined to be Swiss arbitration law, given CAS's jurisdiction, though the dispute involved Kenyan parties and a Kenyan tribunal. The sole arbitrator affirmed his authority to rule on jurisdiction under the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz.
The player argued that CAS had jurisdiction based on FIFA Statutes and the SDT Draft Rules, but the sole arbitrator noted that FIFA's provisions do not automatically extend CAS's jurisdiction to domestic disputes. Previous CAS rulings supported this interpretation, emphasizing that Article 58(1) of the FIFA Statutes does not grant CAS authority over decisions by national bodies like the SDT. The sole arbitrator concluded that CAS lacked jurisdiction in this case, as the dispute did not involve a FIFA decision and the SDT Draft Rules were not yet legally enforceable. The proceedings were conducted fairly, with all parties given the opportunity to present their arguments. The Football Kenya Federation (FKF) Constitution outlines that FKF has jurisdiction over domestic disputes, while FIFA handles international disputes. Article 68 of the FKF Constitution specifies that CAS can hear appeals against FIFA decisions but not against decisions by an independent arbitration tribunal of an association or confederation, such as the SDT. The sole arbitrator concluded that the FKF Constitution does not contain an arbitration clause favoring CAS for domestic disputes. The player’s reliance on Articles 59 and 60 of the FIFA Statutes was also dismissed, as these provisions do not establish CAS jurisdiction over domestic disputes but rather require member associations to implement arbitration systems.
Ultimately, the sole arbitrator ruled that CAS lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the dispute is domestic and the SDT’s decision is final under the FKF Constitution. The appeal was dismissed, and all further motions were denied. The decision underscores the limited scope of CAS jurisdiction in domestic disputes unless explicitly provided for in the relevant statutes or regulations. The ruling explicitly states that CAS does not have the authority to decide the appeal and dismisses all other motions or requests for relief. The decision is grounded in the finding that the SDT Draft Rules were not proven to be in effect, thereby invalidating the basis for CAS's jurisdiction in this matter. The summary ends with the formal dismissal of any further claims or relief sought by the parties involved.