Out after one match: Kakamas Juventus caught up in ABC Motsepe play-off chaos

THE NORTHERN Cape’s Kakamas Juventus travelled over 1,000km from their home base to compete in the ABC Motsepe League National Play-offs — only to be eliminated after playing a single match in what is now being called an irregularly restructured tournament.

Now at the heart of a growing legal battle, the club says it was blindsided by SAFA’s handling of disqualifications and fixture changes, which they allege stripped them of a fair chance to qualify — and possibly make the step up to the National First Division.

What should have been a celebration of rising football talent has unravelled into a crisis of credibility, as the play-offs reportedly descend into confusion, legal wrangling, and mounting criticism of SAFA’s tournament governance.

At the heart of the dispute is what is understood to be SAFA's handling of unresolved provincial disputes and team disqualifications. These unresolved issues have now, according to multiple sources, triggered high court interventions and raised questions about the legitimacy of the tournament outcomes – including the provisional promotion of clubs to the professional ranks.

Legal battles threaten to derail promotion

Four clubs – Sinenkani FC (Eastern Cape), Kakamas Juventus (Northern Cape), Sunrise FC (Limpopo), and FC Ravens (Eastern Cape) – launched a joint legal challenge over what they allege were mid-tournament rule changes and SAFA’s failure to resolve eligibility disputes before kickoff.

It is alleged that the disqualification of teams from Limpopo and the Eastern Cape left some groups with just two teams instead of the standard three, reportedly creating inconsistencies in qualification paths.

NC team out, just like that

Kakamas Juventus, who had travelled to Pretoria to represent the Northern Cape, were reportedly eliminated after playing just one match – a development they have described as procedurally flawed and unjust.

Their case was first heard in the Makhanda High Court, but legal action escalated on Saturday (July 5) when Eastern Cape-based Sinenkani FC filed an urgent application at the East London High Court. They were joined by Kakamas Juventus, who, despite already competing at the play-offs, maintained their objections over the tournament's structure and SAFA’s in-tournament decisions.

Judge Thembekile Malusi presided over the matter and, according to court documents seen by the DFA, issued a ruling on Saturday afternoon.

“It is ordered that the SAFA national play-off fixtures scheduled for 6pm on 5 July and those on 6 July, or any, shall be stayed pending the finalisation of the cases under the above-mentioned case numbers,” the judge ruled.

Play continues – under a legal cloud

Despite the above, the first semi-final between The Bees (Mpumalanga) and Thames (North West) kicked off at 3pm on the same day the court was sitting. The Bees won 4-2 and secured provisional promotion to the National First Division. However, Judge Malusi clarified that even that match is subject to legal review:

“The national play-off fixture played on 5 July 2025, at 15:00 … may continue to play, but is subject to the outcome of the Main Review Application.”

“The fixtures from 2 July to date of the SAFA national play-offs are also subject to the outcome of the Main Review Application.”

Notwithstanding the court’s ruling, SAFA proceeded with preparations for Sunday’s final at Lucas Moripe Stadium in Atteridgeville. At the time of writing, The Bees, Gomora United (Gauteng), and Midlands Wanderers had been provisionally promoted to the Motsepe Foundation Championship – although this, too, is subject to the outcome of pending legal processes.

The Premier Soccer League has also reportedly been cited as a respondent, given that it is expected to administer the newly-promoted teams in the next season.

Mounting criticism of SAFA’s governance

Online backlash – much of it unverified but widespread – has been swift and severe. Many observers have described the play-offs as a “social league” and accused SAFA’s National Competitions Department of “making up rules” on the fly.

SAFA’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Department has come under fire, with allegations that it was bypassed as clubs took their grievances directly to court.

Clubs involved in the litigation claim that SAFA had at least a month to resolve the provincial disputes but failed to act. The consequences, they argue, have been severe for both the disqualified teams and the perceived integrity of the tournament.

FC Ravens, for instance, are appealing a court ruling that reviewed and set aside an earlier arbitration award in their favour concerning a provincial dispute with Sinenkani.

Sinenkani chairman Nathi Nqoko voiced his frustration at SAFA’s decision to proceed with matches despite the court’s involvement.

“The court communicated to SAFA through their legal team that was in court yesterday (Saturday), and I’m surprised to see them continuing with the games. This is a serious matter,” said Nqoko.

“We welcome this decision [to appoint three judges] because it will close all the gaps and make things easier … even though we feel the matter is straightforward, it gives us comfort.”

SAFA, when approached by SABC Sport, reportedly offered only a brief response:

“We have a game taking place at the moment, and we are concentrating on it at the moment. We will issue a statement at a later stage.”

What’s next?

According to legal representatives involved in the matter, the case is scheduled to return to court on July 22. Until then, the fate of the play-offs – and the future of clubs hoping to earn professional status – remains unclear.

While matches may continue in the interim, they do so under what critics have described as a growing legal and reputational shadow. Should the court ultimately rule in favour of the complainants, it is believed the entire 2025 ABC Motsepe League National Play-offs could be declared null and void – a result that would cast serious doubt over SAFA’s governance and impact grassroots football countrywide.

The DFA approached SAFA Northern Cape for comment, but none had been received at the time of publication.