The Sports Disputes Tribunal (hereinafter the Tribunal) is established under Section 55 of the Sports Act. The Tribunal is composed of a chairperson who shall be a person who is qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court; at least two members who shall be advocates of the High Court of Kenya with at least seven years’ experience; and have experience in legal matters relating to sports or have been involved in sport in any capacity; and at least two and not more than six other persons who have experience in sport, in any capacity, of at least ten years. The members are appointed by the Judicial Service Commission.
The Chairperson and members of the Tribunal shall hold office, on a part-time basis, for a term of five years and may be reappointed for one further term of five years.
Jurisdiction
The Tribunal exercises dual jurisdiction both under Section 58 the Sports Act and Section 31 of the Anti-Doping Act.
1. Jurisdiction under the Sports Act
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 58 the Sports Act is three-fold:
1. Appeals against decisions made by national sports organizations registered under Section 46 of the Act. These decisions disciplinary decisions and not being selected for a Kenyan team or squad
In the case of Migori Youth FC v Football Kenya Federation (Tribunal Case E041 of 2023) [2023] KESDT 670 (KLR) (28 November 2023) (Ruling) the Petitioner, member of the Football Kenya Federation (FKF). approached the Tribunal through a Petition under certificate of urgency seeking several conservatory orders against Football Kenya Federation. The Respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal premised on the grounds that the Petition offended the doctrine of exhaustion of internal remedies by failing to challenge the decision through the FKF Appeals Committee established under Article 64(1) (c) of the FKF Constitution (2017) as read together with Rule 10.3.5 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Kenyan Football (2019).
The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent stating that the Petitioner ought to first take the dispute to the Appeals Committee before coming to this Tribunal.
The jurisdiction on not being selected for a Kenyan team or squad was exercised in the case of Waweru v Nyaberi & another; National Olympics Committee of Kenya (Interested Party) (Tribunal Case E016 of 2024) [2024] KESDT 816 (KLR) (21 June 2024) (Ruling) wherein Ms. Waweru challenged the decision by the Kenya Volleyball Federation to replace him with Lilian Nduku Waweru, Mr. Nyaberi after the National Executive Committee of the Federation duly declaring the Ms. Waweru as the appointed Team Manager for Malkia Strikers for the 2024 Paris Olympic Games.
The Tribunal found that that the Ms. Waweru succeeded in the Claim and ordered the reinstatement and approval of the Ms. Waweru’s selection and appointment as the Team Manager of the Kenya National Women’s Volleyball Team, Malkia Strikers, for the 2024 Olympic Games. In the same breath, the appointment of the 1st Respondent as the Team Manager was accordingly nullified, revoked, cancelled and quashed.
2. Other sports-related disputes that all parties to the dispute agree to refer to the Tribunal and that the Tribunal agrees to hear.
Jurisdiction under this limb was handled by the Tribunal in the case of Daglas Mokaya Oyioka v Bandari Football Club and Football Kenya Federation SDT E025 of 2023, wherein the Tribunal in a Ruling of a Preliminary Objection to Jurisdiction stated as follows:
“50. It is uncommon for parties on their own volition to ‘grant’ jurisdiction to a judicial body. This may lead to an endless and protracted battle for forum shopping with parties choosing to stay away from a judicial body just to make it harder for the party that may get wronged to access the judicial body.
51.Whereas Section 58(b) of the Sports Act may seem to speak towards having parties to have an agreement before the matter is taken up for determination by the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds that interpreting this provision as necessitating agreement at the time a dispute arises would pose significant challenges regarding access to the very court of law vested with jurisdiction to hear sports-related disputes, as outlined in Section 58(b) of the Sports Act.”
Further, in the case of Kibunja v Veterinary Laboratory Sports Club & 2 others (Tribunal Case E021 of 2023) [2024] KESDT 89 (KLR) (Civ) (7 February 2024) (Ruling) while citing with approval the case of Daglas Mokaya Oyioka (supra), the Tribunal held that:
“It is not expected therefore that the Claimant in the instant case would have discussions first with the Respondents to agree on bringing the Claim before the Tribunal.”
Accordingly, Section 58(b) of the Act cannot be interpretate in the sense that gives it the effect that the parties to a dispute must agree for the Tribunal to assume jurisdiction. In so doing, it will be akin to a party granting jurisdiction to the Tribunal. A party may also frustrate or make it harder for the aggrieved party to access judicial body for justice contrary to Article 48 of the Constitution. An aggrieved, therefore, party can approach the Tribunal notwithstanding the consent of the other party.
3. Appeals from decisions of the Registrar under this Act.
In the case of Kenya Rowing & Canoe Federation & 2 others v Sports Registrar & 3 others; National Olympic Committee-Kenya (Interested Party) [2021] eKLR the Tribunal was faced with an appeal from the decision of the Sports Registrar. In the case, the Appellants challenged the decision of the Sports Registrar’s refusal to register the duly elected officials of the Appellants and instead proceeded to register interim officials in unclear circumstances.
The Tribunal in affirming and exercising its jurisdiction to hear appeals from the decisions of the Registrar held that:
“32. This dispute falls within the latitude of section 58 (c) of the Sports Act as can be seen above hence the jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been properly invoked. The crux of this case is whether the registrar had powers under the law to merge the two factions into one and the legality of the elections of 02/03/2015 as well as whether the 1st Appellant’s constitution can stand…….
2. Jurisdiction under the Anti-Doping Act
- Jurisdiction under the Anti-Doping Act
The Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Anti-Doping Act flows from the Section 31 of the Act. It provides that the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine cases on—anti-doping rule violations on national and lower level athletes and athlete support personnel; anti-doping rule violations on other persons subject to the Anti-Doping Rules; anti-doping rule violations arising from national and lower level events; Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE) decisions of Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK); and matters of compliance of sports organizations in the first instance and appellate level.
The section specifically excludes the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear cases of involving International Level athletes or arising from the participation in International Events or national crimes related to doping.
The Tribunal exercised this jurisdiction in the case of Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya v Sawe [2024] KESDT 201 (KLR). The proceedings commenced by way of filing charge documents against the Respondent accusing him of tempering or attempted tampering with the Doping Control.
The Tribunal imposed consequences to the effect that the period of ineligibility (non-participation in both local and international events) for the Respondent for violation of Article 2.5 of the Code shall be for 4 years from the date of this decision pursuant to Article 10.3.1 of the Code.
