The date has finally been set for the much anticipated legal showdown between former Mamelodi Sundowns coach Pitso Mosimane, his wife Moira Tlhagale’s entity and the Brazilians.
Sunday World can exclusively reveal that after three years of exchanging correspondence, attending pre-trials and failing to settle the matter out of court, Sundowns will finally go toe to toe with Mosimane and Moira Tlhagale Sports and Marketing, on April 29 in the Joburg high court.
Mosimane and the entity have hired legal eagles Thembeka Ngcukaitobi and Jabu Chanza through Mabuza Attorneys, to represent them.
On the other hand, Sundowns did not leave anything to chance, as they too have hired top legal brain Kevin Iles as their counsel via Bowman Gilfillan Inc.
According to the court documents filed in the high court, the date was set by a court registrar, only known as Mvumbi.
Anastacia Bizos of Bowman Gilfillan Inc accepted the date of the trial. “Thank you for the trial date allocation. We have duly served and filed the notice of set down and J-118 computerised notice of set down, which can be found under Section 009,” read Bizos’ response.
Given the popularity of Mosimane, the club, and its former boss Patrice Motsepe, who is likely to testify in the case, that is likely to arrest the attention of the global media.
The protracted battle between Sundowns and Mosimane and his wife’s company, who were cited as second and first respondents respectively, started when they refused to comply with the club’s demand to pay back at least R8-million in commission they received after Mosimane left the club before the end of his contract following his fallout with Motsepe in 2020. The club said the quantum was for the 44 months that Mosimane was supposed to have spent coaching the team, but instead he left to join Egyptian outfit, Al Ahly.
The PSL outfit said the clause in the contract that Mosimane signed stipulated that Tlhagale’s company should pay back the commission if Mosimane left the club before the lapse of his contract. However, Mosimane and the entity argued that the clause in the contract called “head coach agreement” was unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable.
This was because, they said, the clause provided for the repayment of the commission paid to his wife’s company even though Mosimane was not a party to the payment agreement. The papers also state that Mosimane and the company challenged the clause because it required the repayment of the commission regardless of the circumstances that resulted in the agreement’s termination.
Mosimane and the entity further argued that the clause was unenforceable and unconstitutional because it made the repayment of the commission due by his wife in circumstances where he terminates his contract to which she is not a party.
Sundowns denied Mosimane and the entity’s contention, arguing the company was the revered mentor’s agent. “The second defendant acknowledged the commission would be paid to the first defendant on a particular basis.
“The second defendant acknowledged that the commission payable to his agent was to be paid upfront on the assumption he would serve out the term of the head coach agreement, and he voluntarily agreed to be liable for the commission in the event he failed to fulfil the term of the contract,” read the papers.
Sundowns also said there was nothing unreasonable about their demand because they had expected the contract to run to its full term. Sundowns also said the company had no entitlement to any commission at all.
The club said Mosimane and the entity had not provided any cogent reason in support of the allegation that the clause was unconstitutional, invalid and unenforceable. It challenged Mosimane and his wife to prove the allegations, which they said led to the breakdown of their relationship.
The club also rejected Mosimane and the entity’s claim that the matter should have been referred to the National Soccer League’s Dispute Resolution Chamber and not to court. The club said that although the contract made provision for disputes of any kind to be referred to the body, it contended that the PSL did not have jurisdiction over this matter.
The club said Mosimane and the entity did not seek a stay of action in terms of the Arbitration Act, saying the jurisdiction of the court was not ousted by an alternative dispute resolution clause.
