After more than four months of silence, FUFA’s long-awaited ruling on the abandoned Kitara vs Vipers fixture finally landed, but instead of closing the matter, it has opened a bigger debate: is FUFA applying its own rules selectively?

The match, scheduled for October 4, 2025, was never played after Vipers openly refused to honour the fixture.

In a statement dated October 2, the Venoms insisted they would not take part in the match because they rejected FUFA’s proposed league format.

“Vipers Sports Club… will not take part in the new double-header format game against Kitara,” read part of the club’s official communication.

Despite Vipers’ refusal, FUFA remained firm at the time. Kitara reported to the venue, followed matchday procedures, and even completed pre-match rituals under the guidance of referee Shamira Nabadda, only for the fixture to collapse.

Days later, FUFA dramatically rescinded the controversial three-phase league format, returning to the traditional round-robin system.

Vipers then rejoined the league and commenced playing, while results from already played matches remained intact. Interestingly, no club formally protested the reversal.

But one unresolved question lingered in Ugandan football circles:

What happens to Kitara vs Vipers?

Many expected a reschedule.

Instead, FUFA delivered punishment.

Vipers Found Guilty, Match Forfeited

On Thursday, the FUFA Disciplinary Panel (FDP) ruled that Vipers were guilty of failing to honour the fixture.

“Vipers Sports Club is found guilty of failing to honour a scheduled fixture in breach of Article 16 of the FUFA Ethics and Disciplinary Code… The match is declared lost by Vipers by forfeiture.”

That decision gave Kitara the points, but it raised eyebrows because FUFA stopped halfway through enforcing its own regulations.

Under Article 24 paragraph 10 of the FUFA Competitions Rules, the punishment for defaulting is clear:

“…the defaulting club shall lose the match by forfeiture and shall be docked three (3) points and three (3) goals from those already accumulated or to be accumulated in event that the defaulting club is the away club.”

Vipers were the away side. Therefore, beyond losing the match, they should also have suffered:

• a deduction of 3 points
• a deduction of 3 goals

But FUFA did not deduct anything from Vipers’ accumulated tally.

Instead, the FDP leaned on discretion.

“The panel relying on discretion provided under Article 5 of the FUFA Ethics and Disciplinary Code will not impose additional sanctions…”

That statement, while legal in wording, has been interpreted by many as FUFA effectively suspending its own competitions rules to protect a club’s standing.

A Rule Previously Applied Ruthlessly

This is not the first time FUFA has faced scrutiny for inconsistent enforcement.

The same rule of docking points and goals was last famously applied in 2019, when Police FC failed to show up for a match against Onduparaka while away on EAPCCO duty.

In that case, the rule was enforced.

In this one, it was softened.

And the inconsistency is what fuels controversy.

Kitara’s Patrick Kaddu Case Sparks Another Debate

The same ruling also addressed another sensitive matter: Kitara fielding Patrick Kaddu in a 1-1 draw against KCCA in September despite him allegedly being ineligible.

FUFA’s conclusion?

“It would be unjust to impose a disciplinary action on a club for a technical error that was beyond their control.”

That reasoning has further triggered backlash, since many clubs in previous seasons have been punished for similar administrative errors—even when the fault originated from registration or documentation systems beyond club control.

The Kitara–Vipers ruling is now being added to a growing list of FUFA decisions that have historically shocked clubs, fans, and football administrators.

1. Sadam Juma Transfer Sanction (May 2017)

FUFA allowed Ibrahim Sadam Juma to move from Express to KCCA outside the transfer window, but ruled he could not feature for either club until the next registration window, domestically or continentally.

2. Onduparaka vs KCCA Replay Order (December 2021)

Despite clear rules on hooliganism, FUFA controversially ordered a replay of the abandoned match in Arua after fans stormed the pitch. Both clubs were awarded UGX 2.5 million each to facilitate the replay at Bombo.

3. Uganda Cup Final Replay: KCCA vs SC Villa (June 2015)

After KCCA walked off in protest of officiating, FUFA ordered a full replay but upheld all bookings and red cards from the abandoned match—leaving KCCA without key players. The replay ended 3-0 in Villa’s favour.

4. BUL vs SC Villa Uganda Cup Replay (February 2023)

Villa protested a wrongly disallowed goal. FUFA ordered a replay after confirming assistant referee Khalid Muyanga erred. Villa still lost the replay, but the decision set a precedent for overturning results through officiating errors.

5. KCCA Sanction for Gavin Kizito (December 2024)

KCCA lost a league match for fielding Gavin Kizito, even though the referee report initially failed to record a booking that would have triggered suspension. The ruling suggested club records could override official match records, raising fears about the integrity of FUFA’s registry system.

The Bigger Question: Are Rules Still Rules?

The Kitara–Vipers case has once again placed FUFA under the microscope, not because of the forfeiture itself—but because of what was left out.

If competitions rules clearly state that defaulting teams lose points and goals, then selective discretion risks creating a dangerous precedent where:

• punishment depends on club influence
• rules become flexible
• judicial decisions appear political rather than procedural

And in a league where every point can decide titles, relegation, and continental qualification, such inconsistencies are not minor, they are season-defining.

Verdict

FUFA may have punished Vipers on paper, but by shielding them from the full consequences of defaulting, the federation has handed Ugandan football another painful reminder.