[2020] KEHC 2826 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 2826 (KLR)

The court found that it lacked original jurisdiction to entertain the dispute because the plaintiffs had not exhausted the statutory dispute resolution mechanisms provided under the Sports Act. The dispute should have commenced with the Sports Registrar, proceeded to the Sports Tribunal, and only reached the High...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 2826 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Harpal Singh Sehmi; Plaintiff: Kennedy Obuya; Plaintiff: Kalpesh Solanki; Plaintiff: Pearlyne Omamo; Plaintiff: Omole Asiko; Defendant: Zehravanu Janmohammed; Defendant: Tom Tikolo; Defendant: Mukhtar Assaria; Defendant: Charles Nyaberi; Respondent: Sports Registrar; Respondent: Murtaza Tajbhai
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 63 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application (motion for Interim Orders)
Outcome
Application struck out for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to defendants and interested parties.
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of High Court, Injunctive Relief, Sports Regulation, Government Proceedings Act
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Jurisdiction of High Court Injunctive Relief Sports Regulation Government Proceedings Act

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harpal Singh Sehmi

Plaintiff

Kennedy Obuya

Plaintiff

Kalpesh Solanki

Plaintiff

Pearlyne Omamo

Plaintiff

Omole Asiko

Plaintiff

Zehravanu Janmohammed

Defendant

Tom Tikolo

Defendant

Mukhtar Assaria

Defendant

Charles Nyaberi

Defendant

Sports Registrar

Respondent

Murtaza Tajbhai

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application (motion for Interim Orders)

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application and the suit in light of the Sports Act and Government Proceedings Act.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interim injunctive orders restraining the Sports Registrar and maintaining their positions in Cricket Kenya.
  3. 3 Whether the suit and application are properly before the court or constitute an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it lacked original jurisdiction to entertain the dispute because the plaintiffs had not exhausted the statutory dispute resolution mechanisms provided under the Sports Act. The dispute should have commenced with the Sports Registrar, proceeded to the Sports Tribunal, and only reached the High Court on appeal. Additionally, the court was barred by Section 16(2) of the Government Proceedings Act from granting injunctive relief against the Sports Registrar. The plaintiffs' application was therefore improperly before the court, and the motion was struck out with costs to the defendants and interested parties.

Court Disposition

Application struck out for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded to defendants and interested parties.

Orders

  • The motion dated 18th May 2020 is struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the defendants and interested parties.