Online Reporter
Veronica Gwaze-Zimpapers Sports Hub
CONTROVERSY continues to shroud the unique 14-minute Castle Lager Premier Soccer League fixture scheduled for this afternoon at Baobab, pitting Hardrock and Dynamos.
Kick-off is at 1pm.
The ZIFA Appeals Committee on Tuesday night dismissed Hardrock’s appeal for a Stay-of-execution on the Premier Soccer League disciplinary committee’s ruling on the abandoned encounter between the debutants and Dynamos. Crowd trouble at Chahwanda on May 24 forced referee Mhaka Magare, in consultation with the Match Commissioner Ruzive Ruzive, to abort the match after 75 minutes with the teams tied 1-1.
According to the PSL disciplinary committee that match will now resume in the 76th minute this afternoon and should be played behind closed doors.
Both clubs were also fined US$10 000 for violating the league’s rules and regulations.
In terms of the ruling, Hardrock will also play one match behind closed doors.
Hardrock, unhappy about the judgment, which also ordered them to play an extra game in an empty stadium, lodged an appeal with the ZIFA Appeals Committee.
After deliberations at which all the parties were represented, the Appeals Committee upheld the PSL ruling, paving the way for the truncated game at Baobab to go ahead as scheduled today.
This is also despite the fact that Dynamos, on their part, had contested against being served late, a copy of the Hardrock appeal in which they were cited as respondents.
In dismissing the Hardrock appeal for a stay of execution, the ZIFA Appeals Committee noted that the Kwekwe outfit’s prospects for success were minimal and would thus suffer no prejudice with the PSL’s disciplinary committee ruling being effected.
“The Appellant’s request for a stay of execution pending appeal is hereby dismissed,’’ ruled the Appeals Committee.
“The direction contained in the Judgment of the PSL Disciplinary Committee dated 30th June 2026, that the fixture between Hardrock FC and Dynamos FC abandoned on 24th May 2026 be completed from the 76th minute, shall proceed as directed on Thursday, 09th July 2026.
“The costs of the present request are reserved for determination together with the costs of the appeal.
“This Order is confined to the request for stay pending appeal and is without prejudice to and shall not be read as expressing any view upon the merits of the appeal, which remains to be determined’’.
The Appeals Committee also noted that:
“The relief sought in Part VI of the Notice of Appeal is extensive, encompassing findings on the binding effect of FIFA Disciplinary Committee jurisprudence, the setting aside of two convictions, an alternative variation of sanction, an order for compensation against the Second Respondent, an order reversing the declined award of the abandoned fixture on a 3-0 scoreline, and costs.
“The present Order is concerned only with the ancillary and urgent question of whether execution of the Judgment — specifically, the direction that the abandoned fixture be completed on Thursday, 09th July 2026 – should be stayed pending determination of that relief. “It does not touch upon, and should not be read as prejudging, any of the substantive relief sought.
“The Committee records, for completeness, that in sporting disputes, the noting of the appeal does not automatically suspend the operation of the Judgment. To that extent, a party wishing to avoid execution pending appeal must apply for, and satisfy the requirements of, a stay, which is what the Appellant has, correctly, sought to do through its written request.
“It is well established, including in the jurisprudence of the CAS, that a request for a stay of execution pending appeal will only be granted where the applicant demonstrates, cumulatively: that the stay is necessary to protect the applicant from irreparable harm (the “irreparable harm test”): the applicant must demonstrate that the requested stay is necessary in order to protect its position from damage or risks that would be impossible, or very difficult, to remedy or cancel at a later stage; that the applicant has reasonable chances of success on the merits (the “likelihood of success test”).
“The applicant must demonstrate that its position is not obviously groundless and that it has reasonable prospects of eventually succeeding in the appeal; and that the applicant’s interests outweigh those of the opposing parties and of any third parties (the “balance of interests test”): the applicant must demonstrate that the harm or inconvenience it would suffer from refusal of the stay would be comparatively greater than the harm or inconvenience the other parties would suffer were the stay to be granted.
