Robert Macharia v Sports Dispute Tribunal; Football Kenya Federation & 60 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
P. Nyamweya
Judgment Date
October 05, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Robert Macharia v Sports Dispute Tribunal; Football Kenya Federation & 60 others [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal insights and implications for sports law in Kenya.

Case Brief: Robert Macharia v Sports Dispute Tribunal; Football Kenya Federation & 60 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Robert Macharia v. Sports Dispute Tribunal & Others
- Case Number: Judicial Review Application No. 100 of 2020
- Court: High Court of Kenya
- Date Delivered: October 5, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): P. Nyamweya
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The primary legal issues before the court involved whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the judicial review application filed by Robert Macharia against the Sports Dispute Tribunal's decision that halted the National Delegates Conference of the Football Kenya Federation (FKF) and directed FIFA to establish a normalization committee for Kenyan football.

3. Facts of the Case:
Robert Macharia, the applicant, is the Chairman-elect of the Muranga branch of FKF and the sole financier of Murang’a Seal Football Club. He challenged a decision made by the Sports Dispute Tribunal on March 17, 2020, which obstructed the FKF's electoral process and mandated FIFA's intervention. Macharia sought judicial review to quash the Tribunal's decision and prevent it from interfering with FKF elections.

4. Procedural History:
Macharia filed an application for judicial review on April 30, 2020. The High Court granted him leave to apply for an order of certiorari and prohibition on May 18, 2020. Following this, the 2nd to 61st Interested Parties raised preliminary objections regarding the court's jurisdiction, arguing that Macharia had not complied with mandatory provisions of FIFA statutes and FKF Constitution. The court directed that these objections be heard first, leading to the current ruling.

5. Analysis:
Rules:
The key legal provisions examined included Articles 14 and 59 of the FIFA Statutes and Articles 3 and 11(d) of the FKF Constitution 2017, which outline the obligations of member associations and the dispute resolution mechanisms.

Case Law:
The court referenced the case of *Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd* (1969) EA 696, which defines a preliminary objection as a pure point of law. Additionally, the case of *Owners of Motor Vessel “Lillian S” vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd* (1989) KLR 1 was cited regarding the necessity of establishing jurisdiction prior to proceeding with a case.

Application:
The court determined that the objections raised by the Interested Parties regarding jurisdiction were based on the assertion that the dispute fell under FIFA's jurisdiction and should be resolved through its mechanisms. However, the court emphasized that it was being asked to review the legality of the Tribunal's decision rather than to resolve the underlying football dispute itself. The court concluded that it had supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunal as established under Articles 47 and 165(6) of the Kenyan Constitution.

6. Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the preliminary objections raised by the Interested Parties, affirming its jurisdiction to review the Tribunal's decision. The court found that the FIFA statutes did not oust its jurisdiction, as the matter at hand was a review of the Tribunal's actions rather than an electoral dispute.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The High Court of Kenya ruled in favor of Robert Macharia, affirming its jurisdiction to hear the judicial review application against the Sports Dispute Tribunal. The court dismissed the preliminary objections raised by numerous Interested Parties, establishing that the FIFA statutes did not preclude the court's authority to review the Tribunal's decisions. This case underscores the balance between international sports governance and national legal frameworks, emphasizing the role of domestic courts in overseeing quasi-judicial bodies.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Robert-Macharia-v-Sports-Dispute-Tribunal-Football-Kenya-Federation--60-others-Interested-Parties-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2391_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries