CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2020/A/7032 & CAS 2020/A/7033 & CAS 2020/A/7042 — Ben Malango v. Tout Puissant Mazembe / Tout Puissant Mazembe v. Ben Malango, Raja Casablanca & FIFA / Raja Casablanca v. Tout Puissant Mazembe

"Malango / TP Mazembe" · CAS consolidated three appeals over whether a Congolese player's second employment contract with TP Mazembe was forged, commissioning two forensic handwriting reports.

What happened in Malango / TP Mazembe

Ben Malango, a Congolese professional footballer born 10 November 1993, signed a first employment contract with TP Mazembe in October 2014. In June 2019, TP Mazembe revealed a second contract allegedly signed on 16 December 2016 and valid until 15 December 2021. Malango denied ever signing it. He then signed with Raja Casablanca on 15 August 2019. TP Mazembe filed a DRC claim seeking USD 5,000,000 compensation plus sporting sanctions. On 21 February 2020, the DRC partially upheld the claim, ordering Malango and Raja jointly and severally to pay USD 296,996.50 plus 5% p.a. interest from 3 September 2019, rejecting the USD 2,000,000 penalty clause as disproportionate. All three parties appealed to CAS. The three cases were consolidated before Sole Arbitrator Ulrich Haas. The central factual dispute — whether the second contract's signature was forged — led the Sole Arbitrator to commission two forensic reports from Ms Nicole Crown-Burri of the Zurich Forensics Science Institute. The First Forensic Report (November 2021) found very strong support that the main signature was Malango's but also very strong support that page 2 had been substituted. The Second Forensic Report (April 2023) largely confirmed those findings. A hearing was held in Lausanne on 8 November 2023. Settlement negotiations failed in December 2023. The case is significant for its detailed treatment of document authenticity, burden of proof in forgery allegations, and the interplay between contractual penalty clauses and Article 17 FIFA RSTP.

Procedural history of CAS 2020/A/7032

On 3 September 2019, TP Mazembe filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber against Malango and Raja seeking USD 5,000,000 compensation plus a four-month playing ban and a two-registration-period transfer ban. On 21 February 2020, the DRC partially accepted the claim, ordering Malango and Raja jointly and severally to pay USD 296,996.50 plus 5% p.a. interest from 3 September 2019, rejecting the USD 2,000,000 penalty clause as disproportionate and imposing conditional sporting sanctions under Article 24bis RSTP. The reasoned decision was notified on 14 April 2020. On 30 April, 4 May, and 5 May 2020, TP Mazembe, Malango, and Raja respectively filed Statements of Appeal with CAS. The three proceedings were consolidated on 12 May 2020. The Deputy President of the Appeals Arbitration Division referred the matters to a Sole Arbitrator. An Order on Language dated 4 June 2020 fixed English as the language of the arbitration. Sole Arbitrator Ulrich Haas was appointed on 6 October 2020. Two forensic expert reports were obtained. A hearing was held on 8 November 2023 in Lausanne. Settlement negotiations failed by 15 December 2023.

Key holdings in CAS 2020/A/7032

• The FIFA DRC is not competent to fully investigate criminal-law matters such as alleged signature forgery, and such questions generally fall within the jurisdiction of competent national criminal authorities.
• The burden of proof for alleged forgery of a contract lies on the party disputing authenticity, who must provide adequate grounds rather than merely asserting forgery.
• The USD 2,000,000 penalty clause in Article 5.2 of the Second Contract was found by the DRC to be patently disproportionate to the player's monthly salary of USD 1,000 and therefore unacceptable, requiring compensation to be assessed under Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP.
• Under Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP, the DRC calculated compensation as the average of the residual value of the contract with TP Mazembe (USD 28,000) and the remuneration under the Raja contract (USD 565,993) for the period 15 August 2019 to 15 December 2021, yielding USD 296,996.50.
• A club signing a professional who has terminated his contract without just cause is presumed under Article 17(4) FIFA RSTP to have induced the breach, making Raja jointly and severally liable for the compensation.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The DRC applied Article 12(3) of the FIFA Procedural Rules to place the burden of proving forgery on Malango, noting its limited investigative powers regarding criminal matters and its inability to appoint handwriting experts. On a layman's prima facie comparison of signatures, the DRC concluded the Second Contract appeared authentic. It rejected the USD 2,000,000 penalty clause under Article 5.2 as patently disproportionate relative to the USD 1,000 monthly salary, instead applying Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP criteria. Compensation was set at the average of the residual value of the TP Mazembe contract (USD 28,000) and the Raja contract remuneration (USD 565,993) over the relevant period, yielding USD 296,996.50. At CAS, the Sole Arbitrator took a more rigorous evidentiary approach, commissioning two forensic reports from the Zurich Forensics Science Institute. The First Forensic Report found very strong support that the main signature was Malango's but also very strong support that page 2 of the Second Contract had been substituted. The Second Forensic Report confirmed strong support for alteration of both the club copy and the Notary Copy. The Sole Arbitrator rejected TP Mazembe's requests for further extensions and additional submissions beyond observations on the expert reports, citing procedural fairness and the principle that parties had adequate opportunity to present their cases.

Why Malango / TP Mazembe matters in CAS jurisprudence

This case is notable in CAS jurisprudence for the Sole Arbitrator's decision to commission two independent forensic handwriting reports — including chemical ink analysis — to resolve a document authenticity dispute that the DRC had declined to investigate fully. The forensic findings of page substitution in both the club copy and the Notary Copy of the alleged second contract illustrate the limits of prima facie signature comparison at first instance and the broader evidentiary powers available at CAS on de novo review. The case also addresses the interplay between contractual penalty clauses and Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP, and the burden of proof applicable when a party alleges forgery of an employment contract.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2013/A/3207 CAS 2014/A/3707 CAS 2015/A/4177 CAS 2016/A/4408 CAS 2017/A/5395 CAS 2018/A/6468

Frequently asked questions about Malango / TP Mazembe

What did the forensic expert find about Ben Malango's signature on the TP Mazembe second contract?

The First Forensic Report by Ms Nicole Crown-Burri of the Zurich Forensics Science Institute found very strong support that the main signature on page 3 of the Second Contract was written by Malango, but also very strong support that page 2 of the contract had been substituted after the contract was completed. The Second Forensic Report confirmed strong support for alteration of both the club copy and the Notary Copy, and found that a different writing instrument was used for the initials on page 2 of both versions.

How did the FIFA DRC calculate the USD 296,996.50 compensation in the Malango v TP Mazembe case?

The DRC calculated compensation under Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP by averaging the residual value of the TP Mazembe contract from 15 August 2019 to 15 December 2021 (USD 28,000 in total salaries) and the remuneration Malango would receive from Raja over the same period (USD 565,993, based on a monthly allocation of USD 20,214). The average of those two figures is USD 296,996.50, which the DRC ordered Malango and Raja to pay jointly and severally plus 5% p.a. interest from 3 September 2019.

Why did the DRC reject the USD 2,000,000 penalty clause in the Malango TP Mazembe second contract?

The DRC found the USD 2,000,000 penalty clause in Article 5.2 of the Second Contract to be patently disproportionate compared to the player's agreed monthly salary of USD 1,000. The DRC therefore refused to apply it and instead assessed compensation using the criteria of Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP, including the remuneration under both the existing and the new contract and the time remaining on the existing contract.

Was Raja Casablanca held jointly and severally liable in the Malango TP Mazembe CAS case?

Yes. The DRC held Raja jointly and severally liable for the USD 296,996.50 compensation pursuant to Article 17(2) FIFA RSTP. Under Article 17(4) FIFA RSTP, it is presumed unless established to the contrary that any club signing a professional who has terminated his contract without just cause has induced that professional to commit a breach, and Raja did not rebut that presumption before the DRC.

Topics: Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.