Royal AM has made a U-turn on their initial stance that they would boycott their scheduled playoff fixture against Chippa United this afternoon. In a complete 360 degrees turn on their initial decision, club CEO Sinky Mnisi has told SABC News that “It’s game on.”

There seemed to be confusion on the status of the court interdict issued by Acting Judge Nyathi last week Monday against playoffs. Confusion arose when a few days later, Judge Sutherland dismissed the club’s application for leave to appeal upon which the interdict was premised.

While the league was under the impression that Friday’s judgment cleared the way for the playoffs to finally kick-off, Royal AM had insisted that the interdict was a separate matter and still remained in place, threatening the league with further legal action if they proceeded.

Earlier today, the league released a statement stating that Acting Judge Nyathi had clarified the confusion, saying the interdict no longer had basis, meaning the KwaZulu Natal club had no legal recourse not to honour their playoff fixture anymore.


Royal AM had sought leave to appeal a judgment by Deputy Judge President, Roland Sutherland, the previous week upholding the SAFA Arbitration’s decision to award Sekhukhune United three points and three goals for their match against Polokwane City earlier this year. The judgment meant that Sekhukhune United would finish top of the GladAfrica Championship, well-positioned to gain automatic promotion to the DSTV Premiership, much to the annoyance of Royal AM. 

Mnisi had earlier said the interdict remained in place pending the outcome of the Supreme Court of Appeal. 

Mnisi’s full interview below:

On Saturday, Advocate Mphafolane Koma told SABC News that the PSL is, in fact, in the clear to proceed with the Promotional Playoffs for now. 

Koma said until the president of the Gauteng High Court had granted the KwaZulu-Natal team permission to approach the Supreme Court of Appeal, the interdict against the playoffs would be without basis. 

“Remember, the so-called interdict, in its nature, is a temporary relief or a temporary court order, depending on the outcome of certain processes. That is why an interdict is not something permanent. In fact, maybe if they would have opted to make an application in terms of Rule 6.12(c) of the Supreme Court Act, which is an application for reconsideration, I believe they would have more grounds to challenge the status quo,” said Koma. 

Koma’s full interview below: