[2021] KEHC 13578 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 13578 (KLR)

The court found that the central issue in both the application and the petition is the lawfulness and regularity of the inspection and subsequent actions by the respondents. This issue is substantive and cannot be determined at the interlocutory stage without a full hearing of the petition. Granting the orders...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 13578 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Football Kenya Federation; Applicant: Nick Mwendwa; Applicant: Barry Otieno; Respondent: Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Sports, Culture and Heritage; Respondent: Sports Registrar; Respondent: FKF Inspection Committee; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: FKF Caretaker Committee; Respondent: Secretary to the FKF Caretaker Committee
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition E473 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
interlocutory application dismissed; main petition to proceed
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Administrative Action, Procedural Fairness, Sports Governance, Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Right to Fair Administrative Action Procedural Fairness Sports Governance Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Football Kenya Federation

Applicant

Nick Mwendwa

Applicant

Barry Otieno

Applicant

Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Sports, Culture and Heritage

Respondent

Sports Registrar

Respondent

FKF Inspection Committee

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

FKF Caretaker Committee

Respondent

Secretary to the FKF Caretaker Committee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the inspection of the 1st petitioner by the 1st and 2nd respondents was regular and lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the actions taken by the respondents pursuant to the inspection should be sustained or quashed.
  3. 3 Whether the orders sought in the Notice of Motion can be granted at the interlocutory stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the central issue in both the application and the petition is the lawfulness and regularity of the inspection and subsequent actions by the respondents. This issue is substantive and cannot be determined at the interlocutory stage without a full hearing of the petition. Granting the orders sought in the Notice of Motion would amount to issuing final orders before the main petition is heard, which would render the substantive petition moot. Therefore, the court declined to grant any orders in respect of the Notice of Motion and directed that the application be subsumed in the main petition, with the status quo to be maintained until the petition is determined.

Court Disposition

interlocutory application dismissed; main petition to proceed

Orders

  • No orders granted in respect of the Notice of Motion dated 22nd November, 2021.
  • The application is subsumed in the main petition.