Immediate-past Flames coach Patrick Mabedi has sued Football Association of Malawi (FAM) for unlawful dismissal and termination of contract at the Industrial Relations Court (IRC) in Blantyre.
According to the court documents, the case has been registered as number 1116 of 2024.
This follows the association’s move not to compensate the coach as demanded by him through his lawyers, Makiyi, Kanyenda and Associates.
His lawyer, David Kanyenda, in an interview yesterday, confirmed getting instructions from their client to take the matter to court.
Mabedi is further suing the association for unfair labour practices, withheld wages and fringe benefits as well as discrimination.
Mabedi claims that he was on a fixed two-year contract from November 1 2023 to November 31 2025.
The particulars of the case, read: “The said contract created in the applicant a legitimate expectation that he would remain for the entire duration unless lawful earlier termination thereof, occurred. Further, the applicant legitimately expected to receive wages and fringe benefits for the entire duration of the fixed term contract.
“The applicant avers and will contend during trial that the Constitution and labour related legislation such as the Employment Act and Labour Relations Act guarantees him a package of labour rights that have been flagrantly violated by the respondent. “
Mabedi argues that he neither attended nor was he invited to the FAM Emergency Committee meeting which resolved to terminate his contract on October 28 2024.
“Pursuant to the same, the respondent [FAM] communicated its resolutions to the general public via a media release. On or about Monday 29th October, 2024, the respondent caused a media release of even date to be issued to the general public wherein, amongst others, FAM purported to dismiss or relieve the applicant from his post as Malawi National Football Team coach.”
Mabedi further argues that under the Employment Act, the employment of an employee cannot be terminated “unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the employee”.
“The Applicant avers that the respondent lacked a valid reason to terminate his employment contract,” read the grounds.
The coach further argues that he was not accorded an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations proposed for his dismissal through a disciplinary hearing.
“The Applicant avers that on a review of the totality of the legally relevant facts and the legal prescriptions, the respondent failed, refused and neglected to act with justice and equity in respect of his dismissal,” read the particulars.
Mabedi’s lawyers further argue that their client’s contract was purportedly terminated under the provisions of Article 46 of the FAM Statutes (2019).
Read the particulars: “Yet the said provision does not authorise the Emergency Committee to terminate the applicant’s contract, more so, without due compliance with the substantive and procedural dictates of the constitutional and statutory law.
“Worse still, the Respondent flagrantly violated its own employee staff handbook [2022] more particularly Clause 9 that prescribes elaborate disciplinary procedures and Clause 10 governing termination of employment.”
They also stated that the contract termination letter gave two reasons as the basis of the decision and these were the coach’s engagement with the media and the poor performance of the Flames.
Read the particulars: “Further, the said letter cites Clause 3.3.1 of the employment contract and states that the objectives and targets therein have not been met.
“The Applicant avers that he was on course to meet the majority of the performance targets. Further, that the conduct of the respondent [FAM] rendered it impracticable for him to meet some of the targets.”
On the targets, which were qualifying for 2025 Africa Cup of Nations, winning the Cosafa Cup and winning six matches in the 2026 World Cup qualifiers, Mabedi argues that: “Failure to attain one of these targets was not stipulated as ground or cause warranting termination of employment and/or summary dismissal under article 4.3 of the contract.
“Failure to attain one of these targets would automatically attract loss of performance bonuses stipulated in articles 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 of the contract of employment.
“Only a collective failure to attain the three targets could be relied upon as a ground to invoke the termination clause.”
Mabedi states that he submitted technical and camp reports for each game expounding on the inadequacies and shortcomings of the national team.
He claims to have made several recommendations to improve the team’s performance which were not implemented.
Among others, he argues that FAM failed to meet its undertakings and representations to facilitate attainment of the performance targets.
“The Respondent failed to provide the applicant with all necessary support, facilities and resources, financial or material to enable him to effectively and fully discharge his duties under the employment contract,” read the particulars.
Mabedi cites unilateral changes to his backroom staff, poor and insufficient preparations, tedious travel and logistical arrangements, lack of modern equipment and lack of a motor vehicle as some of the challenges.
“Despite the applicant’s recommendations and proposals for addressing the same, the respondent was indifferent and took little or no remedial action and belatedly, if at all,” the grounds read further.
On the Cosafa Cup target, Mabedi argues that it was unattainable as the Flames withdrew from participating in the 2024 edition “due to the untimely and tragic death of the Vice-President of the Republic of Malawi Dr. Saulos Chilima [and eight others].
Argues Mabedi: “However, its noteworthy to observe that FAM decided to send an Under-23 team that was already in camp and further that FAM had appointed Mr. Kallisto Pasuwa to be in charge and excluded the Applicant.
“Therefore, even if the national team had proceeded to participate in the tournament, it would still have been impracticable for the applicant to attain this target as the respondent had tactfully excluded his involvement.”
“Indeed, the respondent has replaced the applicant with Mr. Callisto Pasuwa as interim head coach in what appears to be a calculated scheme that was hatched months ago.”
On the target to win six World Cup matches, Mabedi argues that this was still attainable because at the time of his dismissal, the Flames had won two matches and at the time of his dismissal, they still had six games to be play.
FAM general secretary Alfred Gunda confirmed receipt of the summons in an interview yesterday, but declined to comment further, saying: “Being a matter for the court, I would rather live it there.”
Mabedi’s contract was terminated after a poor run in the 2025 Afcon qualifiers that saw the Flames losing all their first four matches before FAM hired an interim coaching panel led by Pasuwa, which drew 0-0 against Burundi before beating Burkina Faso 3-0.
