CAF Appeals committee fail to understand that Morocco acted in Bad Faith hence, principle of Estoppel Applies

By Chris Kamara GDMS

The FRMF in the finals of the AFCON 2025 acted in bad faith towards the match and played a key role in cajoling Senegal to continue the match despite Senegal were in breach of Article 82 of the AFCON Regulations , by walking out of the game , without the approval of the referee.  

Morocco acted in bad faith on the pretext that, they have an advantage due to the penalty that had been awarded to them and they believed that, they will score and eventually go on to win the tournament. 

On that note, they were very sure that getting Senegal back on the pitch will secure that agenda and as such enable them win the AFCON. 

What they failed to know is that, such intentional dishonest and deceitful conduct would waive their rights ( estoppel) to any successful litigation in future as they have participated in correcting the wrong doing of Senegal; and did not find anything wrong in their conduct. 

Morocco  did not refuse to play citing the breach of the above provision or play under protest. 

By so doing, Morocco had a dishonest state of mind to deceitfully get Senegal to continue the match and ignore their protest of bad officiating which led to the walk out. That,  they succeeded in doing and 

Senegal complied to such dishonest trick and continued the match without any protest of their earlier actions. 

How then can CAF entertain any complaint (s) or appeal from Morocco against  the conduct of Senegal as in breach of the competition rules claiming abandonment , when they had acted in bad faith to get Senegal to continue the match which they later won  at extra time. 

One of the preliminary issues likely to be raised by the Senegalese FA  is that any failure by the opposing team (MRFM) to formally protest a disputed decision during the match constitutes acquiescence, thereby giving rise to estoppel and precluding a subsequent challenge to the validity of the result. 

From a legal standpoint, the doctrine of acquiescence arises where a party, with full knowledge of the relevant facts, fails to assert a right in circumstances where a reasonable party would be expected to do so. 

If a team continues to participate in the match without lodging a formal protest, either through the captain, match officials, or the competition match commissioner, it may be argued that they accepted the conditions under which the match proceeded.

In the CAS case Benin v. Sierra Leone/ CAF 2021, CAS ruled that the decision of the referee was final and that the decision of Benin to refuse to adhere to the directives of the referee rendered their case dismissed cited Rule 5.2 of the Law of the Game of IFAB. 

By being part of the decision to get Senegal to continue the match is detrimental to their case  and such appeal at CAS would give Senegal to very strong footing and eventual success in their appeal. I just hope Senegal’s legal team was able to raise this issue during the appeal hearings at CAF as an “estoppel” against the appeal of MRFM. 

If not please include it in your appeal to CAS/TAS 

If indeed this was raised by Senegal, and it was ignored, then there is a good chance that Senegal will succeed at CAS.