Mogashoa accuses Sello of delay tactics in escalating R40m Swallows dispute

As previously reported by SABC Sport, the former Moroka Swallows boss has petitioned the High Court to cancel the sale agreement concluded in May 2024, arguing that Sello failed to settle the balance of the R40-million purchase price.

While Mogashoa is seeking to have the transaction set aside and the status restored, Sello has pushed back, challenging the court’s jurisdiction. 

He maintains the matter should have been referred to the National Soccer League structures or escalated through South African Football Association arbitration channels, insisting the dispute is procedural rather than substantive.

Central to Sello’s defence is the claim that he is not in breach but rather engaged in a payment process that Mogashoa has misinterpreted. 

He argues that while the balance remains outstanding, payments are being made — just not in the format or timeline demanded.

READ: Panama gain valuable test against South Africa ahead of World Cup

Mogashoa, however, dismisses this outright. 

In his replying affidavit, he frames the R40-million deal as a “bargain”, claiming the franchise is worth nearly double that figure, and contends that Sello’s conduct reflects a pattern of delay rather than compliance.

He alleges that a detailed list of staff and player obligations – amounting to approximately R6.5-million – formed part of the agreement, yet only a portion of those payments has been settled. 

Although Sello has made some contributions, including payments linked to lifting the recent FIFA ban, Mogashoa maintains that several commitments remain outstanding.

Crucially, Mogashoa argues that Sello’s own admission of having paid only R20-million upfront effectively confirms that a substantial portion of the purchase price remains unpaid. In his view, this constitutes a material breach, entitling him to cancel the agreement and reclaim the franchise.

He further rejects suggestions that the legal action is a strategy to repossess and resell the status while retaining the initial payment, describing such claims as unfounded.

According to Mogashoa, multiple notices and attempts to secure compliance were ignored, leaving him with no option but to terminate the agreement. 

While Sello characterises the matter as a payment dispute requiring arbitration, Mogashoa insists it is a straightforward case of non-payment.

These competing interpretations — whether the issue is a dispute over payment structure or a clear failure to meet contractual obligations — are now set to define the legal battle as the High Court weighs the validity of the cancellation against Sello’s jurisdictional challenge.