The Namibian Football Association announced today that SKW had won its case for using an unregistered player.
The acting secretary general of the NFA, Barry Rukoro said that SKW had been fined N$4 000 but would not be deducted six points for using Arend von Stryk against Blue Waters and Eleven Arrows.
Rukoro did not elaborate on the reasons for the decision.
The decision means that SKW will regain six the six points that the Namibia Premier League had earlier deducted from it.
It takes a huge load off their shoulders and sees them moving up from 11th and second last position on the log with 10 points to sixth position on 16 points.
Background details
Von Stryk went to Scotland to attend trials with Scottish First Division club Dundee United after getting an international clearance from the NFA at the request of SKW.
According to the NFA, SKW had to follow the same procedure by requesting an international clearance certificate from the Scottish Football Association (SFA) for Von Stryk to play for SKW, but the club failed to do so.
Von Stryk featured in SKWâ??s matches against Blue Waters and Eleven Arrows on November 12 and 13, which they won 3-2 and 3-0 respectively. Blue Waters lodged a complaint arguing that Von Stryk was not registered with SKW, but the case dragged on for more than three months before a judgement was finally delivered.
The NFA eventually found SKW guilty on February 8, 2007, but allowed them leave to appeal.
SKW presented its mitigating circumstances, and the initiator, Moses Ikanga, finally ruled in their favour.
Inaccuracies
The case had been riddled by inaccuracies since the start.
SKW claim that Blue Waters lodged their appeal after the allotted 48 hours to do so, while several constitutional violations have also occurred.
According to Article 35.1 of the NFA constitution, the NFA should have delivered the judgement seven days after the hearing of the case on January 27. SKW were however only informed about the judgement on February 6.
According to Article 33.3 of the constitution, the hearing was supposed to be convened not later than 30 days after the charge was served. The charge was served on December 5 and the hearing only took place on January 27.
Article 33.4 of the constitution states that if the hearing is not convened within 30 days of the charge, â??the misconduct shall be deemed to have not been committed.â?