Former Mamelodi Sundowns coach Pitso Mosimane and his wife’s company have taken the next step in their legal battle against the club, asking the Johannesburg High Court to overturn a judgment ordering them to repay more than R7.9 million.
The move comes after Judge Shanaaz Mia granted Mosimane and his wife’s company, MT Sports Marketing and Management (MT Sports), leave to appeal her judgment on 26 August 2025.
In that ruling, Mia ordered Mosimane and MT Sports to repay more than R7.9 million to Mamelodi Sundowns.
After being granted leave to appeal on 12 May 2026, Mosimane and MT Sports, represented by Mabuza Attorneys, filed a notice of appeal on the same day asking the Johannesburg High Court to uphold their appeal and replace Mia’s ruling with an order dismissing Sundowns’ claim with attorney-and-client costs.
“Please take notice that the Appellants hereby note an appeal to this honourable court against the whole of the judgment and order of the honourable Mia J… The appeal is upheld with costs. The order of the court a quo is substituted with the following order: the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs on an attorney-client scale, including the costs of counsel,” the appeal application, seen by Africa Daily, states.
The filing means the appeal will now be heard by a full bench of three judges in the Johannesburg High Court.
This also contradicts media reports claiming the matter would be heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The dispute centres on more than R8 million paid by Sundowns to MT Sports as commission for negotiating the renewal of Mosimane’s contract. The parties later parted ways before the contract expired in 2020, prompting the club to invoke clawback clauses in the agreement and successfully seek repayment.
In their appeal, Mosimane’s lawyers argue that Mia erred in finding in favour of Sundowns because she failed to properly consider evidence that Mosimane’s working conditions had become intolerable due to the conduct of certain club officials.
“Mr Mosimane was facing difficulties with various persons employed by or affiliated with the club. These individuals threatened that he would be dismissed, interfered with his professional decisions, and even threatened his life,” the lawyers state.
They further allege that despite Mosimane reporting the threats to then club president Patrice Motsepe and club director Rejoice Simelane, no action was taken.
Instead, they claim Simelane insisted that Mosimane apologise to Motsepe and members of staff — including those who had allegedly threatened him — after he was quoted in a newspaper saying that certain individuals at the club did not want him to succeed.
According to the appeal papers, Simelane did not dispute these allegations during cross-examination during the trial in 2025.
The lawyers argue that the court failed to appreciate that Sundowns’ claim effectively punishes Mosimane financially despite the club allegedly creating intolerable working conditions that resulted in the termination of his employment.
They are also challenging the validity of the clawback clauses contained in MT Sports’ agreement with the club.
According to the appeal papers, the clauses are unconstitutional, punitive and contrary to public policy because they require MT Sports to repay millions of rands even where Mosimane’s departure results from unfair dismissal.
“The exploitative nature of the clause, which cannot accord with public policy under the Constitution, was not considered by the learned judge,” the lawyers argue.
They further contend that the clauses allowed Sundowns to recover up to R8.6 million from Mosimane despite him being the club’s employee.
“In other words, the clause requires the employee to compensate the employer for dismissing him,” they state.
The lawyers also argue that MT Sports had fully performed its obligations once Mosimane’s contract was successfully negotiated and concluded, meaning there was no legal basis for compelling the agency to repay the commission.
“The clawback clauses would operate even if the club unfairly dismissed Mr Mosimane on his first day of employment,” the appeal papers state.
They argue that the provisions amount to an unjustified penalty against MT Sports, despite the company committing no breach of the agreement, and that the High Court failed to consider the clauses’ unconstitutional, punitive and exploitative nature.
