Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCAllowedJudicial Review Application dated 17th February 2025 (Chamber Summons)

Republic v Sports Tribunal & another; Bandari Football Club (Exparte Applicant) (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1716 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
12 June 2025
HWHellen Wasilwa
3,301 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court has allowed Bandari FC to challenge whether the Sports Disputes Tribunal can hear its coach's employment dispute.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Bandari Football Club, the ex-parte Applicant, sought leave to apply for judicial review orders of prohibition, certiorari and mandamus against the Sports Disputes Tribunal's ruling of 14th January 2025 in SDT Case No. E032 of 2024 (Twahir Mohamed Muhiddin v Bandari Football Club), in which the Tribunal upheld its own jurisdiction over a claim for damages for unlawful termination of the Applicant's coach, the 2nd Respondent. The Applicant argued the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Sections 58 and 59 of the Sports Act and Rules 12 and 23 of the Sports Disputes Tribunal Rules, 2022 is confined to appeals from national sports organisations and agreed referrals, that the parties' contract mandated arbitration, and that the ruling was ultra vires, unreasonable and took into account irrelevant considerations. The 2nd Respondent opposed, contending the application was a veiled appeal against the Tribunal's jurisdictional ruling, that appeals lie to the Court of Arbitration for Sport under Rule 26(1), and that judicial review addresses process, not merits. The court, per Wasilwa J, considered the rival submissions on the leave stage test and concluded the application raised an arguable case fit for further investigation. The chamber summons was allowed, with the Applicant directed to file the main judicial review motion, and costs awarded in the application. This is an interlocutory leave decision; the substantive questions of jurisdiction and legality remain for the substantive motion.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the application meets the test for grant of leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2.Whether the Sports Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the employment dispute involving a football coach
  3. 3.Whether the judicial review application is an abuse of court process / a veiled appeal

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted

Holding

Leave was granted; the court found the application arguable and merited institution of judicial review proceedings.

Reasoning

Applying the test in Republic v County Council of Kwale ex parte Kondo, the court held that leave is granted where the material discloses an arguable case fit for further investigation at a full inter partes hearing. The court found that the Applicant's challenge to the Tribunal's ruling on jurisdiction raised a question of legality and jurisdiction fit for further investigation, and accordingly allowed the chamber summons.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Leave to apply for judicial review may be granted where, on the material available and without going into the matter in depth, there is an arguable case fit for further investigation at a full inter partes hearing.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the ex-parte Applicant to institute judicial review proceedings before the court
  2. 2.The Applicant directed to proceed and file the main judicial review application
  3. 3.Costs in the application

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

HW
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
High Court's supervisory judicial review jurisdiction (Fair Administrative Action Act; Article 47 of the Constitution invoked by the Applicant)

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.

Having considered the submissions of the parties herein, I find the application to institute judicial review proceedings before this court is merited. I allow the application accordingly and direct the applicant to proceed and file the main judicial review application. Costs in the application.
p. 7Final orders - leave granted
Leave may only be granted therefore if on the material available the court is of the view, without going into the matter in depth, that there is an arguable case for granting the relief claimed by the applicant the test being whether there is a case fit for further investigation at a full interpartes hearing
p. 5Test for grant of leave in judicial review

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment does not specify the case number of the judicial review application before the High Court.

minor

Inconsistent references to the dispute resolution clause - described as clause 8 in the orders sought but clause 9 in the submissions.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Sports Tribunal & another; Bandari Football Club (Exparte Applicant) (Employment and Labour Relations Judicial Review E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 1716 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Application dated 17th February 2025 (Chamber Summons). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1716/eng@2025-06-12

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.