KENYA Trends and Developments Contributed by: John M. Ohaga, SC and Joy Wanyika, TripleOKLaw Advocates
tion under the Arbitration Act, Cap 49, or FIFA-related mechanisms. The Tribunal’s approach reflects sensi - tivity to practical access-to-justice issues, including costs, procedural complexity, and the realities of bar - gaining power in sports employment settings. This is commercially relevant because employment claims can create contingent liabilities that affect budgets, licensing, and squad planning. It also affects contract drafting strategy. Clubs and federations should treat dispute-resolution clauses as operational tools, not boilerplate, and ensure that internal mecha - nisms are functional, credible, and capable of making timely decisions. While employment relationships in Kenya are gener - ally governed by the Employment Act, 2007, the SDT’s role introduces a specialist layer where the dispute is fundamentally anchored in sport. Clients should therefore anticipate that contract enforcement and termination disputes may play out in SDT, especially where the dispute is deeply connected to sporting participation, competition scheduling, or federation- related regulatory obligations. A hybrid identity: specialist tribunal borrowing ADR tools without becoming private arbitration In Kenya, arbitration is typically anchored in the Arbi - tration Act, Cap 49, and is characterised by party autonomy, confidentiality, and limited court interven - tion. Sport frequently uses arbitration models, particu - larly in international contexts. The SDT’s uniqueness lies in its hybrid identity as a statutory tribunal within Kenya’s constitutional order, while still drawing on ADR principles as contemplated in Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. A key illustration is Chemelil Sugar Football Club and Kenya Premier League Limited v Nick Mwendwa and others , SDT Case No 7 of 2020, in which the Tribunal considered whether it should be treated as an arbi - tral tribunal or as a statutory tribunal. The Tribunal’s approach underscores that it is not merely a private arbitration forum but a public specialist tribunal with duties consistent with constitutional values, including fairness and accessibility.
This hybrid identity matters for market participants. It means the Tribunal is more likely to insist on pro - cedural fairness and a reasoned approach that can withstand scrutiny, while still maintaining speed and sector-specific understanding. It also means that parties cannot assume that confidentiality and party autonomy will always dominate the process as they might in private arbitration. Governance and election disputes remain central, with increasing expectations of procedural integrity Sports governance is a recurring source of dispute in Kenya. Election cycles, membership disputes, and disputes about delegates, registers, and eligibility for office often have a direct effect on competition admin - istration and commercial operations. The Tribunal’s uniqueness is that it is prepared to engage with these disputes as legal questions affecting rights and obli - gations, not as “political” matters to be left to internal power dynamics. In Galaxy United FC v Korir & another; Seka FC (Hom - abay County) & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2025] KESDT 52 (KLR), the Tribunal considered issues aris - ing in a federation context and addressed challenges that often arise in election-related disputes, including the role of internal processes. The Tribunal’s approach signals that where governance disputes threaten the integrity of the sport’s administration, the Tribunal will consider intervention where appropriate under the Sports Act framework. For clients, this trend increases the importance of compliance governance. Federations and leagues should maintain verifiable processes, clear notices, properly constituted committees, and documented decision-making. Where disputes arise, the docu - mentary record often determines whether a party can defend the integrity of its process. The Tribunal is reinforcing corporate and organisa - tional discipline in sports litigation. A frequent feature of sports organisations is that many are incorporated entities or operate through corporate vehicles. This raises practical questions about authority to sue, board resolutions, and compliance with internal gov - ernance. The SDT’s jurisprudence suggests a willing -
202 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook