REPUBLIC OF KENYA

THE JUDICIARY

OFFICE OF THE SPORTS DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

APPEAL No. 4 OF 2021

PETER DUKE MICHIEKA ...................................................1ST APPLICANT

JUDY KIRAGU .......................................................................2ND  APPLICANT

CHERYL NGIMA....................................................................3RD  APPLICANT

VERSUS

CHESS KENYA ...................................................................1ST  RESPONDENT

BENARD WANJALA ........................................................2ND  RESPONDENT

JOHN MUKABI ..................................................................3RD RESPONDENT

GILBERT WANDERA .......................................................4TH  RESPONDENT

DECISION

Hearing:  22nd  June, 2021

Panel:    Gichuru Kiplagat   Panel Chairperson

Gabriel Ouko     Member

Maria Kimani       Member

Appearances   Kamunge & Nyakeri Advocates for the Applicants.

Ochutsi Munyendo Advocate for the Respondents.                           

Background

1. The proceedings have been commenced by way of a notice of  motion  dated  04/05/2021  filed  by  the  Applicants  under certificate.

2. The  applicants  claim  that  the  Respondents  ought  to  have conducted elections by 14/02/2021 and that as per the provi- sions of the Sports Act, the 2nd, 3rd  and 4th  Respondents term in office came to an end on 14/02/2021 and are thus illegally in office.

3. They further claim that the actions of the Respondents have been  negatively  affecting  the  growth  and  development  of chess in Kenya. They note further that the Respondents have ignored  the  directions  of  the  Registrar  of  Sports  to  take prompt initiatives to make Chess Kenya compliant with the law.  They  relied  on  the  sworn  affidavit  of  Peter  Duke Michieka the 1st  Applicant.

4. The Applicants seek for orders that the tribunal do make a declaration that the 2nd,3rd  and 4th  Respondents herein are in office illegally and that the tribunal to issue orders of injunc- tion to restrain the 2nd,3rd  and 4th  Respondents from conduct- ing official Chess Kenya responsibilities. Lastly, that the tri- bunal  appoints  an  interim  independent  committee  with  the sole  purpose  of  conducting  democratic  elections  for  the  1st Respondent.

5. The Respondents in response filed grounds of opposition and a preliminary objection both dated 24/05/2021.The Respon- dents  raised  a  number  of  points  key  among  them  that  the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this case and the that Applicants have not exhausted internal mechanisms to have the disputes addressed as per the constitution of the 1st Respondent.  The  Respondents  grounds  of  opposition  repli- cate the same issues raised by the notice of preliminary ob- jection.

6. The Respondents for the reasons aforementioned asked the tribunal to strike out the suit with costs.

Hearing

7. The  matter  was  heard  on  18/05/2021,15/06/2021  and  on 22/06/2021.The  parties  filed  their  written  submissions  and on 22/06/2021 highlighted them orally.

Discussion

8.  We  have  examined  all  the  documents  and  taken  into  ac- count  the  oral  and  written  submissions  by  the  parties  and opine as follows.

9. The limits of what a preliminary objection should entail was well     captured     in     the     case     of     Mukisa    Biscuits Manufacturing   Co   Ltd-vs-   West   End   Distributors (1969) EA 696. Sir Charles Newbold JA stated that:

“…a  preliminary  objection  consists  of  a  point  of law  which  has  been  pleaded  or  which  raises  by clear implication out of the pleadings and which if granted as a preliminary point may dispose of the   suit.   Examples   are   an   objection   to   the jurisdiction  of  the  court  or  plea  of  limitation  or submission  that  the  parties  are  bound  by  the contract   giving   rise   to  the   suit  to   refer   the dispute  to  arbitration….it  raises  a  pure  point  of law,  which is  argued  on  the  assumption  that  all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or  if  what  is  sought  is  the  exercise  of  judicial discretion.”

10.   The Tribunal has framed these two questions for deter- mination based on the Mukisa test above:

a. Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this case. b. Whether the Applicants have exhausted internal mech- anisms to address the dispute.

11.    We  will  first  address  the  first  issue.  The  jurisdiction  of this Tribunal stems from Section 58 of the Sports Act which provides as follows:

“The Tribunal shall determine—

(a) appeals  against  decisions  made  by  national sports   organizations   or   umbrella   national sports organizations, whose rules specifically allow for appeals to be made to the Tribunal in relation to that issue including —

(i)    appeals against disciplinary decisions;

(ii)   appeals against not being selected for a Kenyan team or squad;

(b) other  sports-related  disputes  that  all  parties to the dispute agree to refer to the Tribunal and that the Tribunal agrees to hear; and

(c) appeals from decisions of the Registrar under this Act.”

12.   Section 59 of the Sports Act states further that:

“The Tribunal may, in determining disputes apply alternative dispute resolution methods for sports disputes and provide expertise and assistance re- garding alternative dispute resolution to the par- ties to a dispute.”

13.  The letter by the Sports Registrar dated 09/12/2020 ad- monished  the  Respondents  for  having  not  having  met  the conditional  requirements  despite  issuance  of  a  provisional certificate of registration by her office. This was also based on  the  order  of this  tribunal  in  Sports Disputes Tribunal Case No.27 of 2016.

14.  However, we note that it was premature for the Appli- cants to move the Tribunal before the Sports Registrar could exercise  and  finalize  her  statutory  mandate  on  registration of  Chess  Kenya  under  Part  VI  of  the  Sports  Act  and  the Sports  Registrar’s  Regulations,  2016  in  terms  of  her  letter dated 09/12/2020.We also fail to understand why the Appli- cants failed to bring the Sports Registrar on board as a party in these proceedings given the centrality of her office in this matter.

15.  Moreover,  it  was  also  premature  for  the  Applicants  to move  this  Tribunal  without  first  exhausting  the  internal mechanisms provided for under Part VII of the Sports Regis- trar’s  Regulations  2016.Part  VII   requires   anyone   with   a sports dispute and in this case the pending registration and compliance or lack of it to first seek the intervention of the Sports Registrar in the first instance. Where the party is un- happy with the decision of the Sports Registrar he or she can move  the  Tribunal  within  21  days  of  such  decision.  In  the case  of  Speaker  of  the  National  Assembly  v  James Njenga Karume(2013) eKLR restated by the Court of Ap- peal  in  Eldoret  Civil  Appeal  No.5  of  2021  Almer  Farm Limited  v  National  Land  Commission  &  Others  eKLR the court said:

“...Where  there  is  a  clear  procedure  for  redress of  any  particular  grievance  prescribed  by  the constitution  or  an  Act  of  Parliament  that  proce- dure should be strictly followed.”

16.   We therefore find that we have no jurisdiction to enter- tain this claim.

17.   On the issue of exhausting the local remedies. The Ap- plicants never presented any material before us to show that they  had  tried  to  resolve  the  dispute  through  any  other mechanisms  before  moving  the  Tribunal.  This  question  is also closely linked to our answer to the first question. We will not belabor further. We thus agree with the Respondents on this question.

18.   We have always stated that proper sports governance must  be  inculcated  in  our  federations  and  that  is  what  the Sports Act came to address. With these incessant wrangles, it  is  our  sports  men  and  women  who  end  up  suffering.  Al- most all the parties in this instant case were here before us over a somewhat similar dispute in    Sports Disputes Tri- bunal  Case  No.27  of  2016.We  have  to  bring  this  to  an end.

19.  We are also alive to the fact that the federation cannot operate in a vacuum given the tournaments that Kenya has to  participate  in  and  the  attendant  sanctions  should  Kenya fail  to  participate.  This  is  equally  important  for  the  country even as the federation seeks to comply with the Sports Act and the Sports Registrar’s letter of 09/12/2020.

20.    It  is  for  these  reasons  that  the  following  orders  now commend themselves to this Tribunal:

a. The Notice of Motion dated 04/05/2021 is hereby dismissed;