CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10607 — Al-Hilal Club v. Lamin Jarjou & Grenoble Foot 38

"Jarjou" · CAS upheld a player's just-cause termination of his contract with a Sudanese club due to the April 2023 civil war.

What happened in Jarjou

Lamin Jarjou, a Gambian professional footballer born 19 February 2002, signed a five-year employment contract (1 August 2022 – 31 July 2027) with Al-Hilal HK of Omdurman, Sudan, worth USD 490,000 in total remuneration. On 15 April 2023, civil war erupted in Sudan, suspending all sporting activities. Al-Hilal evacuated its squad to Egypt and then Tunisia. On 29 June 2023, Jarjou terminated the contract for just cause, citing the war, psychological trauma (later diagnosed as PTSD), the suspension of the Sudanese championship, and Al-Hilal's earlier failure to pay three months' wages. Al-Hilal filed a FIFA claim seeking USD 608,642.92 in compensation. On 7 March 2024, the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber rejected Al-Hilal's claim and ordered it to pay the player USD 4,206 in outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest. Al-Hilal appealed to CAS. The CAS Panel dismissed the appeal and confirmed the DRC decision in full, holding that the civil war fundamentally altered the essential conditions of the employment contract, entitling the player to terminate with just cause and without any financial or sporting consequences. The case matters because it confirms that a supervening civil war — even absent a contractual breach by the club — can constitute just cause for a player to terminate an employment contract under Article 14(1) RSTP.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10607

On 19 July 2023, Al-Hilal filed a claim before the FIFA Football Tribunal's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) seeking USD 608,642.92 in compensation from the player for alleged breach of contract, plus a four-month sporting suspension. The player filed a counterclaim for outstanding salary. On 7 March 2024, the DRC rejected Al-Hilal's claim in full, partially accepted the player's counterclaim, and ordered Al-Hilal to pay USD 4,206 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum from 30 June 2023. The DRC found that the civil war fundamentally changed the contractual conditions and that neither party was liable for compensation. The grounds of the DRC decision were notified on 3 May 2024. On 22 May 2024, Al-Hilal lodged a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Article R47 of the CAS Code, asking CAS to set aside the DRC decision, declare the player's termination wrongful, and award USD 608,642.92 jointly and severally against both respondents.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10607

• A civil war that erupts after an employment contract is signed and suspends the domestic championship can constitute just cause for a player to terminate the contract under Article 14(1) RSTP, even where the club has not itself breached the contract.
• Just cause for termination may arise from 'other impeding circumstances' — not only from a contractual violation by the other party — where the essential conditions under which the contract was entered into are no longer present and the affected party cannot in good faith be expected to continue the employment relationship.
• It is unnecessary to establish all conditions for force majeure under Swiss law in order to find just cause for termination; just cause has a broader scope than force majeure.
• The fact that a player terminates a contract approximately two months after leaving the country affected by civil war, and presumably after acquiring a concrete expectation of signing a new contract, does not negate the existence of just cause where the fundamental basis of the employment had already changed.
• New evidence offered at a CAS hearing is inadmissible under Article R56 of the CAS Code unless exceptional circumstances are established; discovering a voice message the day before the hearing, without explanation for the delay, does not constitute exceptional circumstances.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Panel focused on whether the April 2023 civil war in Sudan constituted just cause for termination under Article 14(1) RSTP, interpreted in light of Article 337(2) SCO and CAS jurisprudence. It held that just cause is broader than force majeure: while force majeure requires absolute and final impossibility of performance, just cause requires only that the essential conditions of the contract are no longer present and continuation cannot in good faith be expected. The Panel accepted that Al-Hilal acted diligently during the crisis but stressed this was irrelevant, since just cause can exist independently of any breach by the club. The Panel found the civil war was of a magnitude not comparable to prior Sudanese disorders, was unexpected even to Al-Hilal itself, suspended the Sudanese championship indefinitely, and forced the club to relocate abroad and compete in a foreign league — fundamentally altering the contractual basis. The Panel rejected Al-Hilal's argument that the player premeditated the termination to join Grenoble, noting the three-month gap between termination and the new contract and the absence of evidence that the player positively accepted continuation in the new circumstances. Issues of the player's nationality, passport discrepancies, and alleged mendacity in obtaining his passport were dismissed as irrelevant to the core question.

Why Jarjou matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award confirms that a supervening civil war can constitute just cause for a player to terminate an employment contract under Article 14(1) RSTP without any financial or sporting consequences, even where the club itself has not breached the contract. The Panel clarified that just cause has a broader scope than force majeure under Swiss law, and that the fundamental alteration of the contractual basis — here the suspension of the Sudanese championship and the club's forced relocation abroad — suffices to justify termination on a case-by-case analysis.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2013/A/3471 CAS 2021/A/8277 CAS 2014/A/3463 & 3464 CAS 2015/A/3909 CAS 2020/A/7253 CAS 2021/A/8156

Frequently asked questions about Jarjou

Did the Jarjou case establish that civil war is just cause for a player to terminate a contract under FIFA rules?

Yes. The CAS Panel in CAS 2024/A/10607 held that the April 2023 civil war in Sudan fundamentally altered the essential conditions of Jarjou's employment contract with Al-Hilal, entitling him to terminate under Article 14(1) RSTP without any financial or sporting consequences. The Panel found that the Sudanese championship was suspended indefinitely and Al-Hilal was forced to relocate abroad and compete in a foreign league, making continuation of the contract unreasonable in good faith.

Does a player need to prove force majeure to terminate a contract for just cause when a civil war breaks out?

No. The CAS Panel in Jarjou expressly held that it was unnecessary to establish all conditions for force majeure under Swiss law, because just cause under Article 14(1) RSTP has a broader scope. Just cause exists whenever the essential conditions under which the contract was entered into are no longer present and the affected party cannot in good faith be expected to continue the employment relationship, even if absolute and final impossibility of performance — required for force majeure — is not proven.

Can a club avoid paying compensation to a player who terminates for just cause due to war, even if the club itself did not breach the contract?

Yes, according to Jarjou. The CAS Panel confirmed that just cause for termination can arise from 'other impeding circumstances' entirely independent of any contractual breach by the club. Al-Hilal was found to have acted diligently during the crisis, yet the player was still entitled to terminate without consequences because the civil war — not the club's conduct — had fundamentally changed the contractual basis.

How much compensation did Al-Hilal claim from Jarjou and Grenoble Foot 38, and what did CAS award?

Al-Hilal claimed USD 608,642.92 jointly and severally from Jarjou and Grenoble Foot 38, plus a four-month sporting suspension for the player. CAS dismissed the appeal in full and confirmed the DRC decision, which rejected Al-Hilal's claim entirely and instead ordered Al-Hilal to pay the player USD 4,206 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum from 30 June 2023.

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.