UPDF FC has officially appealed the FUFA Judicial Committee (FJC) decision ordering a continuation of their abandoned fixture against KCCA FC.
The army side filed a formal appeal to the FUFA Appeals Committee, signed on Saturday, October 31, by Club Chief Executive Officer Lt. Sheldon Turyamureeba. The appeal has also been copied to the Chief Executive Officers of FUFA and the Uganda Premier League (UPL).
The original fixture at the MTN Omondi Stadium in Lugogo came to an abrupt halt in just the 8th minute due to a sudden floodlight failure. The FJC subsequently ruled that the remaining minutes of the match be played at a later date. However, UPDF FC wants this decision completely overturned, citing procedural unfairness and the misapplication of competitions regulations.
Key Grounds for the Appeal
UPDF FC’s appeal outlines several critical flaws in how the judicial process and rules were handled:
- Exclusion from Investigations: The club reveals that the FJC entirely failed to involve or consult them during the investigative process. UPDF argues that as a key party to the events at Lugogo, they had a right to be part of the proceedings from inception to the final decision.
- Breach of Communication Protocols: UPDF FC claims they never received any formal, direct communication of the verdict or its legal reasoning via their official email address (ceo@updffc.com). Instead, club officials shockingly learned of the federation’s final decision through FUFA’s public social media channels.
- Misapplication of Rule 31(5): The club notes that under Rule 31(5), a match must be suspended for up to 30 minutes following a floodlight failure. If the lights cannot be restored to licensed standards within that specific timeframe, the referee is strictly mandated to abandon the match.
- Demand for Forfeiture under Rule 31(6): UPDF highlights that Rule 31(6) outlines distinct sporting consequences based on investigation findings. They argue that under Rule 31(6)(a), if the home team is found at fault for the failure or benefits from the disruption, they must lose the match by forfeiture—rather than being granted a continuation under Rule 31(6)(c).
- KCCA chairman remarks: when he cited that a failure of the lights was due to a worn-out component in the stadium’s power system and appealed to FUFA to permit a replay instead of forfeiture. His explanation raises a material question: whether the failure was genuinely unavoidable or resulted from inadequate maintenance, inspection or preparation by the home team. UPDF FC does not contend that wear and tear alone conclusively proves negligence. However, the condition of the failed component, its maintenance history, the inspection regime and the foreseeability of the failure must be examined before the incident can properly be classified as unavoidable.
- FUFA decision to revoke license to host night matches: The subsequent reported suspension or withdrawal of approval for the stadium to host night matches further underscores the need for a proper technical examination. While that action does not automatically prove that KCCA FC was at fault during the abandoned fixture, it is relevant to the assessment of the stadium’s lighting arrangements and the circumstances that led to the failure. The Club requests that any inspection report, corrective-action notice or reassessment arising from the incident be considered in determining whether the failure was avoidable and attributable to the home team.
The FUFA Appeals Committee is now expected to review the submission to determine whether the FJC’s decision will stand or if UPDF FC will be awarded the maximum three points and three goals via forfeiture.
