One of Africa’s most respected coaches Pitso Mosimane and his agent MT Sports have officially filed an appeal ,through legal representatives Mabuza Attorneys, against the judgment that saw them lose the high-profile multimillion-rand legal battle to Mamelodi Sundowns last month.
MT Sports is owned by Mosimane’s wife, Moira Tlhagale. According to the judgment dated August 19, Judge Shanaaz Mia of the Johannesburg High Court ruled the defendants (Mosimane and MT Sports) must pay R7 912 905 in agents’ commission fees, plus 7% interest per annum from May 10, 2021, until the date of payment.
The defendants were also ordered to pay the costs of the trial. This was after Mosimane left Sundowns to join African giants Al Ahly in 2020, just four months into his new four-year contract with the PSL club.
But they are appealing the judgment.“The first and second applicants hereby give notice of their intention to make application for leave to appeal against the whole of the order and judgment of the Honourable Mia J dated 19 August 2025…” In the court document seen by Sunday World, Mosimane and MT Sports’ defence team, consisting of advocates Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, C Chanda, and T Dewey, instructed by Mabuza Attorneys, stated that the issue with Sundowns was always the clawback clause which stipulates that they should payback the money paid to her as the coach’s agent. According to Tlhagale, this clause has not been included in the contracts of other agents such as Mike Makaab, who represents head coach Manqoba Mngqithi and Steve Kapeluschnik, who is the agent of both former coach Rulani Mokwena and Johan Neeskens.
“The learned judge fundamentally misconstrued the nature of the case on unreasonableness presented by the applicants… the learned judge found that ‘the defendants’ reliance upon the agreement being unfair is based on the employment contract and the intermediary contract being separate contracts. That is incorrect… The issue always concerned the clawback clauses themselves…
“The learned judge erred by failing to find that the clawback clauses were so unreasonable … when the clauses effectively enabled the respondent (the club) to benefit from the second applicant’s (Mosimane) labour for free, as the amount owed in terms of the clawback could exceed his total income.
“This amounts to exploitation of Mr Mosimane.”
