[2025] KESDT 51 (KLR)

Luther v Boxing Federation of Kenya (Tribunal Case E023 of 2024) [2025] KESDT 51 (KLR) (14 January 2025) (Decision)

Neutral citation: [2025] KESDT 51 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Sports Disputes Tribunal

Tribunal Case E023 of 2024

Gabriel Ouko, Chair, MN Kimani & Benard Murunga Wafula, Members

January 14, 2025

Between

Martin Bwangah Luther

Claimant

and

Boxing Federation of Kenya

Respondent

Decision

Parties 1. The Claimant describes himself as the team leader for the Nakuru Amateur Boxing Club.

2. The Respondent, Boxing Federation of Kenya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Federation or BFK’), is a duly registered National Sports Organization in charge of the administration and running of the affairs of the boxing sporting activities in the Republic of Kenya.

Background 3. The Claimant initiated these proceedings vide the Statement of Claim dated 10th September 2024 where the main issues of contention revolve around several governance and operational concerns that the Claimant believes are undermining the integrity of boxing in Kenya.

4. The core of the Claimant’s complaint centers on the Federation’s leadership, which he argues has been in office well beyond the legally prescribed term limits in contravention of the BFK’s own constitution and the Sports Registrar Regulations which stipulates that officials are supposed to serve a maximum of four years and be eligible for one re-election.

5. The Claimant highlights significant conflict of interest issues within the federation’s leadership. He specifically points to individuals holding multiple roles that he believes are incompatible, citing an official who serves simultaneously as the Kenya Police coach and the National Team Coach, while also holding the position of BFK Secretary General.

6. Further, the Claimant alleges non-compliance with international boxing regulations. He claims that the BFK has consistently failed to use certified International Boxing Association (IBA) officials and has not adhered to the mandatory Amateur International Boxing Association (AIBA) Scoring System, which he argues compromises the transparency and fairness of boxing competitions.

7. The Claimant is particularly critical of the Federation’s governance practices, arguing that they lack transparency, accountability, and integrity. He suggests that the BFK has not properly advised county associations to comply with Sports Act requirements, leaving many local boxing associations operating in a legal vacuum.

8. The Claimant’s assertions extend to medical and safety protocols, alleging that the BFK has not been following international standards for ensuring boxer safety. He claims that during tournaments, essential medical requirements such as having proper evacuation equipment, oxygen, and designated hospital support are not being met.

9. Consequently, the Claimant is seeking orders inter alia that:a.An order directing the BFK to ensure that all future competitions are supervised by qualified, impartial officials and that medical and safety protocols are strictly adhered to in accordance with the IBA regulations.b.An order compelling the BFK to address and eliminate conflicts of interest within its leadership and coaching staff, mandating a clear separation of roles to ensure fairness and compliance with the BFK Constitution.c.A call for the immediate conduct of fresh and fair elections within the BFK in compliance with Section 20(6) of the Sports Act Regulations, ensuring that the current office bearers do not continue to serve unlawfully.d.An order directing all county associations affiliated with the BFK to hold fresh elections and comply with the Sports Act and IBA Statutes, thereby regularizing their operations and ensuring lawful governance.e.An order from the Tribunal suspending all national boxing championships, leagues, and related activities supervised by the BFK until the Federation commits to fully comply with its Constitution, the IBA Technical-Competition Rules, and all other relevant laws.

10. The Federation, in its defense, maintains that it is actively working on conducting elections and has already initiated a roadmap for county and national elections. They argue that the Claimants claims are premature and designed to obstruct their lawful election process.

11. The BFK strongly denies the allegations of conflict of interest, arguing that their constitution allows members from associations like the Kenya Police team to be eligible for election, and that referees and judges ensure impartiality in competition decisions.

The Claimant’s Submissions 12. The Claimant submitted that on the first issue for consideration centers on the unlawful tenure of the current BFK officials. He argues that the officials have been in office well beyond the legally prescribed four-year term limit, as stipulated in the BFK’s Amended Constitution of 2019 and Section 20(6) of the Sports Registrar Regulations. Specifically, he points out that officials elected in 2019 should have conducted fresh elections in 2023, but have failed to do so, effectively holding office “in perpetuity.”

13. The Claimant’s other significant focus in his submissions is the conflict of interest within the BFK’s leadership. He highlights two specific cases: Chief Inspector David Munuhe, who simultaneously serves as the Kenya Police coach and the National Team Coach while also holding the position of BFK Secretary General, and Corporal John Waweru, who concurrently holds multiple roles including National Police Service Coach, Competition Secretary, and Head of Technical Delegates. The Claimant argues these multiple roles directly violate both the Article 11. 13 of the BFK Constitution and International Boxing Association (IBA) Technical and Competition Rule 26. 1.2, which prohibits individuals from serving in multiple conflicting roles.

14. Further, the Claimant raises serious concerns about the Federation’s governance practices, alleging a fundamental lack of transparency, accountability, and integrity. He claims the Federation has breached Article 14 of its own Constitution by failing to issue proper meeting notices and undermining governance processes. The Claimant argues that the Federation has further not adequately advised county associations to comply with Sports Act requirements, leaving many local boxing associations operating without proper constitutive structures.

15. The Claimant brings out a critical technical allegation involves the Federation’s competition management. He claims that the Federation has consistently failed to adhere to international boxing regulations, specifically that the Federation’s officials have failed to comply the International Boxing Association (IBA) requirements of using certified officials and failed to implement the mandatory Amateur International Boxing Association (AIBA) Scoring System BS2007 and has violated the Scoring Rule 18 of the AIBA Scoring System.

16. The Claimant also raises significant medical and safety concerns. He alleges the Federation has consistently failed to meet IBA Technical and Competition Rule 30. 7.6, which requires specific safety protocols before each boxing session. This includes ensuring:i.Availability of oxygenii.Presence of a stretcheriii.Recovery and evacuation equipmentiv.Designated evacuation routev.One ambulance per ringvi.A designated hospital for treating injured participants

17. The Claimant argues that these omissions put boxers’ lives at risk and represent a fundamental breach of athlete safety standards. He claims to have personally attended multiple tournaments and observed these safety protocols being systematically ignored.

18. Finally, the Claimant’s submissions challenge the legitimacy of the current election process. The Claimant points out that the Federation’s proposed election timeline is unrealistic and appears to be a “smokescreen” to avoid actual electoral change. He notes that proposed county elections for September 2024 have passed without any legitimate elections, and the promised national elections in October have also not materialized.

The Respondent’s Submissions 19. The Federation's primary defense challenges the Claimant’s legal standing in the case. They argue that the Claimant is merely an ordinary member of the Nakuru Amateur Boxing Club, not an official as he claims, and has no authority to bring this suit. The Federation contends that the Claimant has not produced evidence of being granted any representative authority and therefore questions his locus standi to initiate these proceedings.

20. Regarding the elections, the Respondent maintains that their officials were duly elected in 2019 under the Sports Registrar’s supervision and continue to hold office lawfully. They have submitted an election roadmap to the Sports Registrar, outlining timelines for county elections in September 2024 and national elections in November 2024. The BFK argues that this demonstrates their commitment to a lawful election process and directly contradicts the Claimant’s allegations of perpetual tenure.

21. The Federation vigorously denies all allegations of conflict of interest. They argue that their constitution allows members from associations like the Kenya Police team to be eligible for election. The BFK points to AIBA policy mandating that all coaches must be members of their National Federation, suggesting that the multiple roles highlighted by the Claimant are actually appropriate and in line with international regulations. They challenge the Claimant to provide concrete proof of any conflicts.

22. On governance and competition management, the Respondent claims comprehensive compliance with all requirements. They submitted evidence of their 2024 boxing league calendar, demonstrating adherence to amateur boxing regulations. The Federation provided documentation showing they use a manual scoring system in line with AIBA rules, employ qualified referees and judges, and maintain medical and safety protocols during competitions. They specifically highlighted the Embu County competition as an example of full regulatory compliance.

23. The Respondent portrays the Claimant’s actions as fundamentally disingenuous. They argue that he is acting in bad faith, attempting to obstruct the ongoing election process despite having submitted his own club’s documentation as part of that very process. The Federation suggests the claim is designed to mislead the Tribunal and bring the sport of boxing into disrepute.

24. Further, the Respondent emphasizes the jurisdictional limits of the Sports Disputes Tribunal. They argue that the Sports Registrar holds primary jurisdiction over election processes, and the Tribunal can only act after a decision or directive from the Registrar. They point out that the Claimant has not included the Registrar in these proceedings, which they see as an attempt to undermine the Registrar's legal authority.

25. In their concluding submissions, the BFK presents a comprehensive denial of all allegations. They characterize the claims as unsubstantiated, excessive, and impractical. The Federation requests the Tribunal to dismiss all of the Claimant’s prayers and allow them to continue their lawful operations and election preparations. They argue that they have demonstrated substantial compliance with all relevant laws, regulations, and their own constitution.

Issues 26. From the foregoing, the main issues to be determined by the Tribunal include:i.Whether the Claimant has the requisite locus standi to institute these proceedingsii.Whether the Sports Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction to intervene in election matters before the involvement of the Sports Registrariii.Whether the Boxing Federation of Kenya has breached its constitutional and statutory obligations in its governance and operations

Analysis and Determination Whether the Claimant has the requisite locus standi to institute these proceedings 27. The Respondent at the onset challenged the legal standing of the Claimant as being merely an ordinary member of the Nakuru Amateur Boxing Club and not an official and therefore lacks authority to bring this suit.

28. In the SDTCS E006 of 2023, Purity Njoki & Another vs The Kenya National Sports Council and Others, in paragraphs 40-41, the Tribunal noted that:“Locus standi as defined in Law Society of Kenya v Commissioner of Lands & 2 others [2001] eKLR signifies a right to be heard. A person must have a sufficiency of interest to sustain his standing to sue in court.Gone are the days where locus standi required while filing matters had to be direct. The current Constitutional dispensation has widened the scope of legal standing to include persons who may lodge claims, suits and/or matters before judicial bodies on behalf of the general public. This is in consonance with the Court of Appeal decision in Mumo Matemu vs Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance and 5 Others cementing the place of Article 22 and 258 of the Constitution in our current legal order.Paragraph 28it still remains to reiterate that the landscape of locus standi has been fundamentally transformed by the enactment of the Constitution in 2010 by the people themselves. In our view, the hitherto stringent locus standi requirements of consent of the Attorney General or demonstration of some special interest by a private citizen seeking to enforce a public right have been buried I the annals of history. Today, by dint of Articles 22 and 258 of the Constitution, any person can institute proceedings under the bill of Rights, on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name, or as a member of, or in the interest of a group or class of persons, or in the public interest...”

29. Further in paragraph 45 of the same decision the Tribunal noted that:“An observant member of the public critically questioning integrity of the electoral process of the 1st Respondent is the hallmark of public participation as a principle in good governance. Participation is both qualitative and quantitative. There is no bar to questioning the conduct of an election by a member of the public.”

30. Article 22 of the Constitution of Kenya explicitly provides for public interest litigation. This provision represents a deliberate constitutional design to democratize access to justice and enable citizens to challenge systemic governance failures, even when they are not directly or personally affected.

31. Further, Article 10 of the 2010 Constitution enshrines principles of good governance, transparency, and accountability. These principles extend beyond mere procedural technicalities and embrace a broader public interest approach to organizational oversight. This was emphasized by this Tribunal in Appeal No SDTCS E018 Of 2023 Swaleh Talib Abubakar Vs Stabilisation Committee of the Kenya Swimming Federation And 4 Others, where it held:“Therefore, it is imperative that this Tribunal, as an independent and impartial body, assumes its responsibility to examine the matter thoroughly and ensure that access to justice is upheld in accordance with the National values and principles of governance, including good governance, integrity, transparency, and accountability enshrined in Article 10 of the Constitution of Kenya”

32. Therefore, given that the BFK is a national sports federation funded by public resources, it is incumbent upon this Tribunal to ensure that it operates with the highest standards of governance. Boxing enthusiasts, athletes, and members of the sporting community have a legitimate interest in the federation’s operational integrity. The Federation as a quasi-public entity, it receives its funding from the public and is responsible for national sporting representation and therefore bound by principles of good governance outlined in Article 10 of the Constitution.

33. Further, the Claimant, as a boxing enthusiast and team leader, represents a broader category of stakeholders who have a legitimate interest in ensuring that the Federation adheres to the constitutional principles, protects athletes’ rights, maintains the organizational integrity, and complies with the established sporting regulations.

34. While recognizing the importance of balancing the rights of voting members of the Federation and the broader public interest, this Tribunal finds that the Claimant demonstrates sufficient interest to bring these proceedings. His status as a boxing enthusiast, team leader, and a concerned stakeholder provides legitimate grounds to challenge governance practices that potentially compromise the integrity of national sporting institutions.

Whether the Sports Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction to intervene in election matters before the involvement of the Sports Registrar 35. The jurisdiction of the Sports Disputes Tribunal in election matters represents a critical preliminary issue in this case. The Boxing Federation of Kenya argues that the Sports Registrar holds primary jurisdiction over election processes under the Sports Act, and the Tribunal can only intervene after a decision or directive from the Registrar as an appeal. The Federation contends that the Claimant’s failure to include the Sports Registrar in these proceedings demonstrates an attempt to circumvent proper legal channels. They emphasize that election-related disputes must first be addressed through the Sports Registrar’s office before the tribunal can exercise its jurisdiction.

36. From the Claimant’s perspective, the Tribunal's jurisdiction stems from the broader mandate to address sports-related disputes, including governance issues that impact election processes. The Claimant argues that the Federation’s ongoing violations of the Sports Act and its Constitution create an urgent situation requiring immediate Tribunal’s intervention. He contends that waiting for the Sports Registrar’s involvement would perpetuate the current leadership’s unlawful tenure and further compromise the Federation’s governance.

37. The Claimant further emphasizes that the Tribunal's oversight role includes ensuring compliance with sports regulations, which inherently includes election matters. His position suggests that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is concurrent rather than subordinate to the Sports Registrar’s authority.

38. In the SDT Petition N0 E025 Of 2023 Daglas Mokaya Oyioka Vs Bandari Football Club And Another, in paragraphs 43-46, this Honorable Tribunal noted as follows:“43. One other important explainer of the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal is found at Rule 6 of the Sports Dispute Tribunal Rules 2022 which states that individuals can initiate a claim other than an appeal under the Act through a Statement of Claim.44. This appears to be an indicator that it is not only appeals that may be filed at the Tribunal but that Claims may also be made by persons to the Tribunal as allowed by the Tribunals own Rules which comprise part of the Sports Disputes Policy that is anticipated under Schedule II of the Sports Act when it deals with dispute resolution clauses in constitutions of Sports Organizations.45. There are therefore diverse sources of the Tribunal's jurisdiction that are not limited to the mention of the word ‘appeals’ five times under Section 58 of the Sports Act. This may create the impression that the Tribunal is only an appellate body but we are not persuaded by that non purposive look at Section 58. 46. Consequently, the Tribunal firmly establishes that it is not solely an appellate body. Its jurisdiction is not confined to being an appellate forum as alluded to by the Respondent. It is beyond peradventure that the Sports Act expands the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal outside appellate Jurisdiction.It is most likely that not doing so would forment the rather unpleasant assumption that there is no recourse top grievances in sports organizations until it is heard internally. This may leave aggrieved persons in unresponsive sporting bodies at limbo that would be against the spirit of the statute.”

39. Consequently, while the Tribunal thrives to avoid complicating the Sports Registrar’s oversight role, it also appreciates that it cannot overlook persistent and systematic governance failures that compromises the integrity of national sporting institutions. The Tribunal ought to provide more direct access to dispute resolution for sports stakeholders. However, prior Sports Registrar involvement in matters of elections ensures more coordinated oversight.

40. Therefore, while the primary jurisdiction over election matters rests with the Sports Registrar, this Tribunal cannot turn a blind eye to clear violations of term limits and electoral processes. It is the Tribunal’s mandate to promote good governance in sports necessitates intervention where fundamental principles of democratic governance are compromised.

Whether the Boxing Federation of Kenya has breached its constitutional and statutory obligations in its governance and operations 41. The central question regarding the legitimacy of the current Boxing Federation of Kenya officials hinges on their extended stay in office beyond the prescribed term limits. According to the BFK’s Amended Constitution of 2019, specifically Article 8. 2.2, elections must be held at regular intervals every four years. The current officials were elected in 2019, meaning their term should have naturally expired in 2023. Their continued stay in office beyond this period raises significant legal and governance concerns. The federation's constitution is explicit about term limits, suggesting any extension beyond the prescribed period requires proper legal justification.

42. Further, Section 20(6) of the Sports Registrar Regulations, particularly provides for additional regulatory framework regarding the tenure of sports federation officials. This section explicitly states that newly elected office bearers shall serve a term of four years and may be elected for one further term. The regulation establishes both the duration of service and the limitation on re-election opportunities. The current situation at BFK appears to contradict these clear statutory provisions. The Federation’s officials have exceeded their term limits without conducting fresh elections or obtaining proper authorization for extension.

43. The BFK’s defense of their current position rests largely on their claim of having initiated an election process and submitted a roadmap to the Sports Registrar. They have presented evidence of communication with county associations and proposed timelines for both county and national elections. Their defense includes documentation showing attempts to regularize their position through proper channels. However, their proposed timeline for county elections in September 2024 has already lapsed without any elections being conducted, casting doubt on the credibility of their election preparations.

44. The question of legitimate authority also affects the Federation’s relationship with county associations and other stakeholders. The BFK’s mandate to oversee and direct county associations becomes questionable when their own legitimacy is in dispute. This situation creates a ripple effect throughout the boxing hierarchy in Kenya, potentially destabilizing the entire sport’s governance structure. The uncertainty regarding the federation’s authority could lead to challenges in implementing policies and maintaining order in the sport.

45. This Tribunal has to consider whether the Federation’s current leadership has made genuine efforts to remedy their position. The Federation’s response to the lawsuit and their interactions with the Sports Registrar need to be examined for evidence of good faith attempts to regularize their position. This Tribunal must further assess whether their continued stay in office serves the best interests of Kenyan boxing or merely perpetuates a governance crisis. The impact of their extended tenure on the development and administration of the sport must also be carefully evaluated.

46. On the issue of conflict of interest, the allegations center around two key officials, Chief Inspector David Munuhe, who simultaneously serves as the Kenya Police coach, National Team Coach, and BFK Secretary General, and Corporal John Waweru, who holds positions as National Police Service Coach, Competition Secretary, and Head of Technical Delegates. These multiple roles raise significant concerns about the independence and impartiality of federation operations. The overlapping responsibilities create potential scenarios where these officials must balance competing interests between their various positions.

47. The IBA Technical and Competition Rule 26. 1.2 explicitly prohibits Technical Delegates at IBA competitions from simultaneously serving as active Coaches, Referees, Judges, Team Managers, or Boxers. This rule is designed to maintain the integrity of competition oversight and ensure impartial administration of boxing events. The current arrangement at BFK appears to directly contravene these international regulations. The federation’s defense that their constitution allows members from associations like the Kenya Police team to be eligible for election does not adequately address the specific prohibitions against holding multiple technical roles simultaneously.

48. The practical implications of these multiple roles raise serious concerns about the fairness of competition management and decision-making. When an individual serves as both a coach and a technical delegate, they may face situations where their coaching interests conflict with their responsibility to ensure fair competition. These conflicting responsibilities could potentially influence decisions making about competition outcomes and scheduling, or disciplinary matters. The integrity of the sport is fundamentally compromised when officials must balance competing interests in their various roles.

49. The resolution of this issue requires careful consideration of both immediate and long-term implications for Kenyan boxing. The Tribunal weighs the practical needs of the Federation against the fundamental principles of good governance and fair competition. Any remedy must address not only the current situation but also establish clear guidelines to prevent similar conflicts in the future.

50. On the use of IBA-certified officials, the Claimant alleges that the BFK has consistently failed to employ properly certified officials in their tournaments, potentially compromising the integrity of competition outcomes. This allegation is particularly serious as IBA regulations require all officials overseeing sanctioned competitions to hold valid certification to ensure standardized application of rules and fair adjudication of bouts. While the BFK claims to have submitted evidence of qualified officials, including a list of officials and sample certificates from the Embu competition, the broader pattern of compliance across all competitions remains in question. The federation's defense focuses on isolated examples rather than demonstrating systematic compliance with certification requirements across all their events.

51. Regarding the AIBA Scoring System BS2007, the evidence shows that BFK has been using a manual scoring system instead of the mandatory BS2007 system. While the Federation argues their manual system complies with Section 18 of AIBA rules, this interpretation is incorrect. The BS2007 system is specifically mandated to ensure standardized, transparent scoring across all sanctioned competitions. The Federation’s continued use of an alternative system represents a clear deviation from international requirements.

52. The most serious compliance issue concerns medical and safety protocols under Rule 30. 7.6. The Claimant’s first-hand testimony about the absence of required safety measures at multiple tournaments is particularly compelling. The BFK’s defense, focusing solely on the presence of a medic at one competition, fails to address the comprehensive safety requirements specified in the regulations. The potential risk to boxer safety from these violations cannot be overlooked by this Tribunal.

53. The Federation’s compliance with international standards must be evaluated within the context of their resources and capabilities. While the they argue that they have maintained proper standards within their means, international boxing regulations generally do not provide exceptions based on resource constraints. The Federation’s failure to implement required systems and protocols, regardless of reasons, represents a deviation from mandatory international standards. Their defense must demonstrate not just partial compliance or good faith efforts, but full adherence to all required protocols and systems. The Tribunal must consider whether any resource limitations justify deviation from international standards, particularly when boxer safety is concerned.

54. The resolution of these compliance issues requires careful consideration of both immediate remedial actions and long-term structural changes. The Tribunal weighs the practical challenges of implementing international standards against the fundamental requirement to maintain proper boxing protocols. Any ordered remedies must address not only the specific instances of non-compliance but also establish mechanisms for ensuring ongoing adherence to international standards. The potential suspension of boxing activities, as requested by the Claimant, must be balanced against the impact on athletes while considering whether less drastic measures might achieve the desired compliance outcomes.

55. Another issue is on the BFK’s governance structures and transparency. The Claimant contends that BFK has fundamentally failed to maintain proper governance structures as mandated by both the Sports Act and its Constitution. According to the Claimant, the Federation has breached Article 14 of its Constitution by failing to issue proper notices for meetings, thereby undermining basic governance processes. This lack of proper meeting notification has allegedly prevented stakeholders from participating in crucial decision-making processes. The systematic failure to follow constitutional meeting requirements suggests a broader pattern of governance failures.

56. The Federation, in its defense, argues that it has adhered to all governance requirements, including transparency, accountability, and integrity as mandated by the Sports Act and the Constitution of Kenya. They point to correspondence with the Sports Registrar and claim to have maintained proper documentation of their activities. The BFK further contends that their 2024 boxing league calendar demonstrates their commitment to proper governance and transparent competition management. They argue that the Sports Registrar has confirmed their compliance with governance requirements.

57. A critical aspect of the governance dispute concerns the Federation’s oversight of county associations. The Claimant alleges that BFK has failed to properly guide county associations in complying with Sports Act requirements and IBA Statutes, effectively allowing these associations to operate in a legal vacuum. He specifically points to the Nakuru Boxing Club as an example, where officials were allegedly appointed without proper elections and the association operates without a constitution.

58. The BFK counters these allegations by presenting evidence of their communication with county associations regarding registration and compliance requirements. They have submitted documentation showing directives to county associations to register with the Sports Registrar and hold proper elections. The Federation argues that they have taken proactive steps to ensure county-level compliance, including providing guidance on registration processes and constitutional requirements. They specifically reference their communication dated 2nd August 2024 as evidence of their efforts to maintain proper governance structures.

59. The transparency of financial and administrative operations presents another significant governance concern. The Claimant argues that the federation has failed to maintain transparent processes for decision-making, resource allocation, and competition management. The lack of proper documentation and reporting mechanisms allegedly makes it impossible for stakeholders to monitor and verify the federation's compliance with governance requirements. The absence of regular financial reports and administrative updates suggests a lack of accountability.

60. This Tribunal holds that the resolution of these governance issue requires careful consideration of both the legal requirements and practical realities of sports administration. While the Sports Act and BFK Constitution establish clear governance requirements, the implementation of these requirements must be evaluated against the Federation’s capacity and resources. The evidence suggests significant gaps between the required governance standards and the Federation's actual practices. Therefore, the Tribunal will want to see the Federation address both the immediate compliance issues and the long-term governance sustainability.

61. Finally, this Tribunal has carefully examined the Federation's proposed election roadmap against the requirements of the Sports Act, the BFK Constitution, and established principles of good governance in sports administration. The Federation has submitted documentation indicating planned county elections for September 2024 and national elections for November 2024. However, these proposed dates have already lapsed without any elections taking place. The failure to adhere to their own proposed timeline raises serious doubts about the credibility and actionability of the Federation’s succession plan. This pattern of missed deadlines suggests a lack of genuine commitment to leadership transition.

62. Further, the evidence before the Tribunal shows significant deficiencies in the Federation's election preparation process. While BFK claims to have communicated with county associations regarding registration and election requirements, there is no concrete evidence of meaningful progress toward actual election implementation. The proposed roadmap lacks essential details such as specific voter eligibility criteria, nomination procedures, vetting processes, and dispute resolution mechanisms. These omissions render the current plan inadequate for ensuring a fair and transparent election process. The absence of these crucial elements suggests the roadmap is more aspirational than actionable.

63. The Federation's approach to stakeholder engagement in the election planning process appears insufficient. There is no evidence of meaningful consultation with key stakeholders including county associations, players, coaches, and officials in developing the election roadmap. The plan does not address how the Federation intends to ensure broad participation and representation in the election process. Furthermore, the Federation has not demonstrated how it plans to address existing governance issues that could impact the integrity of the election process.

Conclusion 64. Having carefully considered the evidence and submissions before it, the Tribunal finds substantial merit in the concerns raised regarding the governance of the Boxing Federation of Kenya. The issues presented touch on fundamental aspects of sports administration, including term limits, conflict of interest, safety protocols, and electoral integrity. These matters are not merely technical violations but represent systemic challenges that threaten the development and integrity of boxing in Kenya. The Federation’s apparent disregard for both national and international regulations cannot be overlooked, particularly given its role as the sole national governing body for boxing. The Tribunal must therefore take decisive action to ensure compliance while maintaining the stability of boxing activities in the country.

65. Further, the absence of the Sports Registrar as a party to these proceedings presents a significant procedural gap that must be addressed. The Registrar’s statutory mandate in overseeing sports organizations makes their input crucial for comprehensive resolution of the issues raised. Their involvement will provide necessary regulatory oversight and ensure that any remedial measures align with the broader sports governance framework. The Registrar’s expertise will be particularly valuable in addressing the constitutional compliance issues and election procedures. Furthermore, their participation will facilitate a coordinated approach to implementing the required reforms.

66. The governance issues highlighted in this matter, particularly those concerning conflicts of interest and safety protocols, require immediate attention but must be addressed through a structured and sustainable approach. The Tribunal recognizes that while immediate changes are necessary, they must be implemented in a manner that does not disrupt ongoing boxing activities or harm athletes' interests. A balanced approach that promotes reform while maintaining operational continuity is essential. The federation must be given an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to good governance through concrete actions and detailed compliance reports and ensure that these reforms are meaningful and not merely cosmetic.

67. The issue of term limits and electoral integrity remains a critical concern that strikes at the heart of democratic sports governance. The current leadership’s extended tenure beyond constitutional limits undermines the principles of democratic renewal and accountability that should characterize modern sports organizations. While the Tribunal acknowledges the practical challenges of organizing elections, these cannot justify the indefinite extension of terms of office. The federation must commit to a clear, time-bound electoral process that ensures fair representation and compliance with both its constitution and national sports regulations. This process must be transparent, inclusive, and subject to proper oversight.

68. Consequently, this Honorable Tribunal Orders as follows:i.The Sports Registrar shall be joined as an interested party to these proceedings.ii.The Respondent shall, within 14 days of this ruling, furnish this Tribunal with a comprehensive report addressing:(a)A detailed election timetable and roadmap;(b)Evidence of compliance with term limit regulations or such approval as may have been granted by the Registrar to be in office beyond the term limit;(c)A comprehensive Conflict of Interest policy and implementation framework including extracts of the Conflict of Interest Register;(d)Current medical and safety protocols for all boxing competitions;(e)Documentation of qualified officials and their respective roles;(f)Mechanisms in place for ensuring transparency and accountability;iii.The Tribunal will reserve the right to make such directions as may be necessary to promote good governance, ensure athlete safety and welfare including and not limited to the prayers sought by the Claimant in the Statement of Claim dated 10th September 2024iv.No orders as to cost.

DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025. GABRIEL OUKO - PANEL CHAIRMARY KIMANI - MEMBERBENARD MURUNGA WAFULA - MEMBER