By Vinjeru Ngwira
The Industrial Relations Court (IRC) has ordered the Football Association of Malawi (FAM), as the respondent, to pay former Flames head coach Patrick Mabedi MK53,686,500 as compensation for unfair dismissal following the conclusion of a long-running employment dispute between the two parties.
The judgement was delivered by Deputy Chairperson Whyson Nkhata on May 25, 2026, and officially communicated on May 26, 2026. In its ruling, the court directed FAM to settle the awarded compensation within seven days from the date of the decision, marking the formal conclusion of the matter at first instance.
The court further held that either party who is aggrieved by the decision retains the right to appeal to the High Court within 30 days, in accordance with labour law procedures governing employment disputes of this nature and ensuring both sides are afforded avenues for further legal redress.
The case originated from FAM’s decision in October 2024 to terminate Mabedi’s contract as Flames head coach, just 11 months into his two-year agreement. The association justified the dismissal on the grounds that the coach had failed to meet agreed performance targets during his tenure with the national team.
In response, Mabedi, as the applicant in the matter, challenged the termination and sought MK916 million in damages, arguing that his dismissal was unfair and did not comply with established employment procedures under labour law, particularly in relation to contractual obligations and due process.
Mabedi’s legal representative, David Kanyenda, confirmed the ruling and acknowledged the outcome of the case, stating that the legal team would undertake a full review of the judgement before issuing any further detailed comment on the court’s determination.
On the respondent’s side, FAM lawyer Luciano Mickeus confirmed the ruling and indicated that the compensation awarded was determined using established assessment principles applied by the Industrial Relations Court in resolving labour disputes, noting that the decision reflected the court’s evaluation of the circumstances presented before it.