Busolo v AFC Leopards Sports Club (Cause 786 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 687 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a football coach's claim because his contract required disputes to go through club channels and arbitration, not the court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court has jurisdiction over an employment dispute where the contract contains a multi-tier dispute resolution clause excluding the Court and mandating club-level resolution, FKF arbitration, and arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1995 or FIFA Regulations
- 2.Whether the Sports Act 2013 removes this employment dispute from the Court's jurisdiction
- 3.Whether the Claimant's claims for unfair termination, salary arrears, house allowance, win bonus, anticipatory salary, compensation, certificate of service, costs and interest are properly before the Court
Key legal issues
#Effect of clause K dispute resolution clause on the Court's jurisdiction
Clause K is a valid three-step dispute resolution agreement that excludes the Court entirely; the Claimant filed in the wrong forum.
The court found a valid contract of employment dated 4th January 2015 effective 4th January 2016, containing clause K requiring disputes to be raised at club level, then referred to FKF for arbitration, and finally settled by arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1995 or FIFA Regulations. The court held this mechanism does not include the Court at any stage and consequently it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate or mediate the dispute.
Whether the Sports Act 2013 ousts the Court's jurisdiction
The Respondent's reliance on the Sports Act 2013 was misplaced; nothing in that Act removes the dispute from the Court's jurisdiction, but clause K independently achieves that result.
The Respondent challenged jurisdiction under the Sports Act 2013 but never pursued a preliminary objection. The court found no provision in the Sports Act 2013 stripping the Court of jurisdiction over this employment dispute. However, it held the outcome was the same because clause K of the contract placed the dispute outside the Court's jurisdiction, requiring the Claimant to resort to the agreed forum.
Jurisdiction over the Court's annexed mediation
The Court lacked jurisdiction even to mediate the dispute through its annexed mediation, which had been unsuccessful.
The claim was referred to mediation by Notice of Referral dated 8th November 2021, but mediation failed and parties reverted to Court per the Mediator's Report of 27th April 2022. In judgment the court held that since clause K excludes the Court at the beginning, during resolution and at the end, the Court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate or to mediate through its annexed mediation as it had purported to do.
Legal principles established
#- A valid contractual dispute resolution clause that provides a complete multi-tier mechanism excluding the Court ousts the Court's jurisdiction over employment disputes arising under that contract.
- The Sports Act 2013 does not oust the Employment and Labour Relations Court's jurisdiction over employment disputes; such ouster must rest on the parties' agreement.
Court orders
#- 1.The claim is declined for want of jurisdiction
- 2.No order on the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Court's jurisdiction ousted by clause K of the employment contract, a three-step dispute resolution mechanism culminating in arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1995 or FIFA Regulations
Relief refused
#Entire claim: declaration of unfair termination, notice pay, salary arrears, house allowance, win bonus, anticipatory salary, 12 months' compensation, certificate of service, costs and interest
Claim brought before the wrong forum; clause K of the contract excludes the Court's jurisdiction in favour of club-level resolution, FKF arbitration and arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1995 or FIFA Regulations
Costs
No order on the costs (each party to bear own costs effect).
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is ordered: a. The claim is declined for want of jurisdiction.
b. No order on the costs.
Clause K of his contract is a valid dispute resolution agreement. It is a three-step dispute resolution mechanism. It does not include the Court: not at the beginning; during resolution; or at the end.
There is nothing in the Sports Act 2013, which takes this employment dispute out of the jurisdiction of the Court. Clause K of the contract however, does clearly, place the dispute outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
The Claimant ought to place his Claim, before the agreed dispute resolution forum.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the executed contract of employment, describing it as dated 4th January 2015 while the effective date and earlier narration refer to 4th January 2016.
The Respondent stated it would raise preliminary objections on jurisdiction and competence but no preliminary objection was ever argued; the jurisdictional finding rests instead on clause K of the contract.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Busolo v AFC Leopards Sports Club (Cause 786 of 2018) [2024] KEELRC 687 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2024/687/eng@2024-03-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.