Onyango v Nairobi County Hockey Association & 2 others (Tribunal Case E102 of 2025) [2026] KESDT 17 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment)

Onyango v Nairobi County Hockey Association & 2 others (Tribunal Case E102 of 2025) [2026] KESDT 17 (KLR) (20 August 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KESDT 17 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Sports Disputes Tribunal Tribunal Case E102 of 2025 A.M Owinyi, Vice Chair, E Omondi & L Wamugunda, Members August 20, 2026 Between Thomas Olal Onyango Claimant and Nairobi County Hockey Association 1st Respondent Kenya Hockey Union & another & another 2nd Respondent Judgment 1.The Claimant instituted this suit vide a Statement of Claim dated 21st December 2025 praying for:a.A declaration that the Nairobi County Hockey Association elections held on 22nd November 2025 at Parklands Sports Club were illegal, procedurally flawed and null and void ab initio.b.An order is hereby issued quashing all resolutions, elections and appointments arising from the Nairobi County Hockey Association elections held on 22nd November 2025 at Parklands Sports Club.c.A declaration that the actions and omissions of the Kenya Hockey Union and the Sports Registrar with regards to the Nairobi County Hockey Association elections held on 22nd November 2025 violated the Sports Act and Constitution of Kenya.d.An order directing the Sports Registrar to supervise fresh elections within 60 days in strict compliance with the law.e.Costs of this claim be awarded to the Claimant.f.Any other relief the Tribunal deems just in the circumstances. 2.The Claimant’s case is that on 14th June 2025 at around 1600 hours, nineteen (190 individuals convened a ‘town hall meeting’ of the Nairobi County Hockey Association (NCHA) at the Sikh Union. The Claimant avers that no prior formal notice, whether written, electronic or otherwise, was issued or circulated to registered hockey clubs within Nairobi County, who are the legitimate stakeholders of NCHA. 3.The Claimant averred that the said meeting was not convened pursuant to any provision of the NCHA constitution, stakeholders were neither invited nor represented and the meeting was therefore irregular, exclusionary and unlawful. In the said meeting, it was purportedly resolved that Peter Njoroge be opted as the Interim President of NCHA while Clayson Luvanda be opted as the Interim Secretary General of NCHA, as they were the only individuals who expressed interest in the respective positions. 4.The Claimant stated that the minutes of the said meeting indicated that one Francis Munyao Kisaingu attended the meeting in his capacity as the Interim Treasurer of the NCHA. He further averred that there was no quorum as required by the NCHA constitution, there was no voting, nomination or election, the process of opting interim officials was unknown to law and any purported resolutions arising from the meeting were null and void ab initio. 5.The Claimant further stated that on 29th June 2025, a further meeting was purportedly held virtually without notice to all stakeholders, namely the registered hockey clubs within Nairobi County. At the said virtual meeting, it was purportedly resolved to ratify Peter Njoroge, Clayson Luvanda and Francis Munyao Kisaingu as the Interim President, Interim Secretary General and Interim Treasurer of the NCHA respectively which ratifications were procedurally defective and unlawful. 6.The Claimant contended that on 26th July 2025, Francis Munyao Kisaingu (Francis) was elected as the Deputy Treasurer of the 2nd Respondent and upon his election Francis lost any authority to continue acting as NCHA’s Interim Treasurer. Therefore, his continued involvement in NCHA’s affairs constituted intermeddling and gave rise to conflict of interest. 7.It is the Claimant’s further case that on 3rd September 2025, the NCHA wrote a letter to the 3rd Respondent seeking approval to conduct NCHA elections on 4th October 2025. On 19th September 2025, Clayson Luvanda, in his capacity as NCHA’s Interim Secretary General, wrote an email to Nairobi hockey clubs informing them that the 3rd Respondent, vide a letter dated 18th September 2025, approved the holding of the NCHA Elective AGM on 4th October 2025. However, on 30th September 2025, Clayson again wrote to stakeholders cancelling the elections scheduled for 4th October 2025. 8.The reason advanced was that the earlier notice had not complied with the 21-day statutory notice requirement as stipulated in the NCHA constitution. On 1st October 2025, Paul Omany, acting in his capacity as NCHA’s Interim President, wrote a letter to the 3rd Respondent seeking approval for the elections to be postponed from 4th October 2025 to 1st November 2025. 9.The Claimant averred that Paul Omany resigned from his position as NCHA’s Interim President around February 2025, his identity and authority within NCHA remained unknown and unexplained as of 1st October 2025 when he authored the said letter and as at 1st October 2025, Peter Njoroge was the individual being presented by NCHA as Interim President since his ratification by stakeholdrs on 29th June 2025. Therefore, the letter authored by Paul Omany was illegal and ought not to have been acted upon by the 3rd Respondent. 10.The Claimant further stated that on 13th October 2025, Clayson Luvanda wrote to stakeholders informing them that the law firm of Rose Thuku & Associates Advocates had been appointed as the electoral body to oversee the NCHA elections. According to the Claimant, stakeholders were neither notified, informed or involved in the selection of the electoral body. He alleged that the aspirants chose and paid the electoral body which affected the credibility of the elections. 11.On 29th October 2025, Francis, in his capacity as the Deputy Treasurer of the 2nd Respondent, wrote to stakeholders informing them that the NCHA Elective AGM would be conducted on 22nd November 2025 at the 2nd Respondent’s Boardroom. The Claimant’s case is that the 3rd Respondent did not approve the change of the election date from 1st November 2025 to 22nd November 2025 and that Francis lacked authority to issue the notice. 12.Further, that the elections were not conducted at the 2nd Respondent’s Boardroom but instead took place at Parklands Sports Club on 22nd November 2025. Therefore, stakeholders were not informed of the change of venue which locked them out from participation and the elections were opaque, discriminatory, exclusionary an unconstitutional. 13.In opposition to the suit, the 1st Respondent filed a Response to Statement of Claim dated 24th March 2026. It denied all the averments in the Claimant’s Statement of Claim and averred that it was at the verge of collapsing and not in any position to effectively run its affairs or otherwise deliver its mandate for the hockey community within Nairobi under the leadership of the Claimant and other officials and in exercising its supervisory mandate of all County Hockey Associations appointed an interim office consisting of Paul Omany (Interim Chair), Jayne Roons Amisi (Interim Secretary General) and Francis Munyao (Interim Treasurer) for a limited period to ensure compliance with elections regulations. 14.The 1st Respondent stated that it was until 2025 when the current legitimate elected officials showed interest in running its affairs that the then interim officials kick started the election process. The then interim treasurer issued a proper notice in the prescribed form and formality for teams and clubs to participate in the process that led to the credible elections of the current legitimate office bearers. It was its case that it issued a proper notice ad communication to the 3rd Respondent who then set a date for elections to be communicated to members by the interim office appointed by the 2nd Respondent. 15.The 1st Respondent denied that Peter Njoroge, Clayson Luvanda and Francis Munyao were ratified as Interim Officials of the 1st Respondent. It contended that the said individuals never assumed office in such capacities. It further contended that the responsibility of conducting elections of its officials was handled by the 2nd Respondent through its appointment of an interim office that worked with the 3rd Respondent. The 1st Respondent further denied that Francis was its interim official but asserted that he was appointed in such capacity by the 2nd Respondent and as such his election in whatever capacity with the 2nd Respondent does not invalidate his appointment as an interim official. 16.The 2nd Respondent similarly opposed the suit vide its Defence dated 16th January 2026 and Replying Affidavit sworn by Nashon Okoth Ondiek on 16thJanuary 2026. It stated that whereas the 1st Respondent is its affiliate member, it is an independent county sports association registered as such under the Sports Act and with its own constitution and set of officials separate from the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent’s case is that it did not participate in the events complained about by the Claimant. 17.The 3rd Respondent equally opposed this suit vide its Replying Affidavit sworn by Rose M.N Wasike on 29th May 2025. The 3rd Respondent contended that its functions are statutory and regulatory in nature and do not extend to the day-to-day internal administration, political management, convening of meetings, verification of membership, determination of quorum, appointment of interim office bearers, determination of delegate eligibility or conduct of elections on behalf of sports organizations excepts where expressly provided by law. 18.The 3rd Respondent stated, among others, that on 3rd September 2025 it received correspondence from the 1st Respondent seeking approval to conduct elections and upon consideration of the request and documents greenlighted the holding of the elective Annual General Meeting scheduled for 4th October 2025 subject to compliance with the Sports Act, the constitution of the 1st Respondent and all applicable legal requirements. It contended that its approval of the AGM was administrative and regulatory in nature and did not amount to validation, endorsement or ratification of prior internal processes, disputed office bearers or contested governance arrangements within the 1st Respondent. 19.The 3rd Respondent further contended that it did not convene the elections held on 22nd November 2025, did not determine the venue thereof and did not manage the operational conduct of the electoral process. It, however, admitted attending the elections in exercise of its statutory oversight mandate under the Sports Act strictly for purposes of observation of the electoral process. It stated that the purpose of the observation was to monitor the conduct of the elections at the venue, assess procedural compliance during the exercise and record matters arising. 20.Prior to the commencement of the elections, the 3rd Respondent held a consultative meeting with the Returning Officer on the procedural matters relating to the conduct of the exercise wherein issued concerning the validity of the notice convening the elections following the demise of the Secretary General and the circumstances surrounding the status of the Chairperson who issued the notice were raised. The 3rd Respondent, however, allowed the elections to proceed in what it described as the need to avoid an administrative vacuum. It also treated the notice convening the elections sufficient. 21.This case proceeded to hearing by way of written submissions. Analysis and Determination i. Whether the Elections of the Nairobi County Hockey Association Held on 22nd November 2025 were Conducted in Accordance with the Constitution of the Nairobi County Hockey Association. 22.The Claimant impugns the 1st Respondent’s elections held on 22nd November 2025 on grounds that the meeting of 14th June 2025 that set the electoral process in motion was tainted with illegality since it failed to comply with the 1st Respondent’s constitution, was not quorate and no proper notice was given to the stakeholders. Placing reliance on the case of Raila Odinga & Others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Others (2013) eKLR, the Claimant submitted that an election is a process and not merely an event and every stage of that process must comply with constitutional and statutory requirements. 23.The Claimant further submitted that the appointment of the electoral body presented yet another departure from the 1st Respondent’s constitution given that stakeholders were not involved in its appointment, no transparent selection process was demonstrated and no constitutional mandate for the appointing authority was identified. It was the Claimant’s submission that the postponement of the elections from 4th October 2025 to 1st November 2025 and later to 22nd November 2025 did not receive the blessings of the 3rd Respondent. Therefore, the Claimant calls on this Tribunal to quash the said elections. 24.The 1st Respondent, in rejoinder, submitted that proper notices in the prescribed form were duly issued to eligible voting teams and clubs as prescribed in the NCHA constitution and as such the notices were not to be sent to individuals. It further submitted that the selection of an independent electoral body was done under the guidance and approval of the interim office and the Claimant had not demonstrated breach statutory or constitutional procedure in appointing the electoral board. It placed reliance on Juma v Jubilee Party of Kenya & 2 Others (Election Petition 2 ‘A’ of 2022) [2022] KEHC 10865 for the proposition that sports election disputes will not be invalidated on mere hyper-technicalities unless it is shown that the irregularity affected the ultimate outcome. 25.The 2nd Respondent briefly submitted that it does not conduct elections of or play any part in the 1st Respondent’s internal affairs and was therefore wrongly joined in this suit. It stated that allegations concerning an individual member who also happened to be its official does not prove its involvement and its involvement in the 1st Respondent’s elections was simply to monitor, observe and accept the returns of the election process as governed by Rule 20 of the Sports Registrars Regulations. 26.The 3rd Respondent submitted that its letter of approval dated 3rd September 2025 was purely administrative and regulatory in nature serving to confirm that the 1st Respondent was registered and eligible to hold an elective Annual General Meeting to ensure statutory continuity rather than acting as a judicial endorsement of internal office bearers or contested governance structures. Its case was that the Claimant’s allegations that the elections were opaque, exclusionary, or unconstitutional was contradicted by the official Election Observation Reports. 27.It is not disputed that the 1st Respondent conducted its elections on 22nd November 2025. What is disputed is the legality of the said elections. The said elections were initially scheduled for 4th October 2025 but were postponed to 1st November 2025 and later 22nd November 2025. This Tribunal was made to understand that the cancellation of the 4th October elections was informed by the inadequacy of the 21-day statutory notice as required by the NCHA constitution. However, no plausible reason was given for the change of election date from 1st November 2025 to 22nd November 2025. 28.The 1st Respondent herein is established by Article 2 of the Nairobi County Hockey Association constitution (NCHA constitution). The ultimate control of the NCHA is vested in the Council established under Article 4 (i) which comprises the Executive Committee who are elected every four (4) years at the Annual General Meeting of the Association, one representative nominated by each club, any resident of Nairobi who is a member of the Council, Committee or a sub-committee of the International Hockey Federation and the African Hockey Federation, the immediate past President of the Association, one representative from the Nairobi Secondary Schools Sports Association and one representative from the Hockey Academies. 29.According to Article 5 of the NCHA constitution the Executive Committee comprises the President who shall be a resident of Nairobi, Two Deputy Presidents (one shall be male and the other female), the Secretary General who shall be a resident of Nairobi, the Deputy Secretary General (who shall be of the opposite gender from the Secretary General), the Treasurer who shall be a resident of Nairobi, the Deputy Treasurer, the Immediate past President, the Match Secretary and Assistant Match Secretary (one shall be male and the other female) and two members (one shall be male and the other female). The Executive Committee members are elected at the Annual General Meeting or a Special General Meeting and serve a term of four years and are eligible for re-election for one further term. 30.Article 15 of the NCHA constitution provides for the Annual General Meeting (AGM) which shall be held by 31st May each year, when accounts and the report shall be presented but the officials shall be elected every four years. The agenda for the AGM shall be the in following order: confirmation of the minutes of the previous AGM, President’s address, Secretary General’s report, Treasurer’s Report and adoption of Annual Accounts, Appointment of Auditors, to receive and if deemed fit to pass any resolution for which due notice has been given and election of the election officers of the NCHA. 31.Article 15(c) of the NCHA constitution is instructive that the Secretary General shall give 21-days written notice to all affiliated Associations and Clubs of the place, date and time of the AGM. According to Article 15(d), any Association or Member having any matters for discussion at the AGM in an election year shall submit such resolution in writing to the Secretary General at least 14 days before the date of the AGM. The quorum at the AGM comprises fifty percent (50%) of the members entitled to vote. 32.On the other hand, Article 20 of the NCHA constitution provides that all elections shall be held in accordance with the general principles stipulated under Article 81 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. All voting shall be done by way of secret ballot with all affiliated clubs being entitled to two (2) votes. However, members of the Executive Committee, Founder Members, Honorary Life Members and Patrons shall not have any voting rights at any elections of officials. All elections shall be decided by a simple majority of the valid votes cast by persons present and entitled to vote at such meeting. 33.In this case, the 1st Respondent wrote a letter to the 3rd Respondent on 3rd September 2025 seeking approval to conduct NCHA elections on 4th October 2025. To that end, Clayson Luvanda as the NCHA’s Interim Secretary General, wrote an email to Nairobi hockey clubs informing them that the 3rd Respondent had by its letter dated 18th September 2025 approved the holding of the NCHA Elective AGM on 4th October 2025 which elections were cancelled by Clayson’s letter dated 30th September 2025. 34.On 1st October 2025, Paul Omany, as the NCHA’s Interim President, wrote a letter to the 3rd Respondent seeking approval for postponement of the elections from 4th October 2025 to 1st November 2025. He had, however, resigned from his position as the 1st Respondent’s Interim President around February 2025 and one Peter Njoroge was the 1st Respondent’s Interim President at the time. That notwithstanding, Francis Munyao, the 2nd Respondent’s Deputy Treasurer, wrote a letter to stakeholders on 29th October 2025 informing them that the Elective AGM would be conducted on 22nd November 2025 at the 2nd Respondent’s Boardroom. 35.We wish to note from the onset that this Tribunal has not had the benefit of reading the alleged letters as the same were not provided to it by any of the parties. Be that as it may, as highlighted in para. 29 above the ultimate control of the NCHA is vested in the Council established under Article 4 of the NCHA constitution. In addition, Article 15(a) of the NCHA constitution mandates the holding of the AGM be 31st May each year. Accordingly, the 1st Respondent should have held its Elective AGM by 31st May 2025. However, the evidence points that the Elective AGM was held on 22nd November 2025 more than five months from the constitutional requirement. 36.No plausible reason was presented before this Tribunal on why the Elective AGM was not held by 31st May 2025. By this fact alone, we do not hesitate to find that the elections held on 22nd November 2025 were invalid. We, however, wish to speak of the events culminating in the Elective AGM before we pen off. The Claimant alleged that Clayson Luvanda wrote a letter to the 3rd Respondent seeking approval to conduct the Elective AGM on 4th October 2025 which approval was ultimately granted. However, as rightly submitted by the 3rd Respondent, elections was an internal matter of the NCHA. Therefore, the NCHA did not require the 3rd Respondent’s approval as such was clearly provided for in the NCHA constitution. 37.Whereas this Tribunal has not had the advantage of reading Paul Omany’s letter dated 1st October 2025 to the 3rd Respondent seeking approval for postponement of the elections from 4th October 2025 to 1st November 2025 we are persuaded that the same is invalid, if it ever exists, given that Paul Omany had no such authority in terms of Articles 4 and 6 of the NCHA constitution. While the Claimant alleged that Paul Omany had resigned from his position as the 1st Respondent’s Interim President around February 2025 and one Peter Njoroge was the 1st Respondent’s Interim President at the time, he did not provide a list of the 1st Respondent’s Officials to demonstrate that Paul Omany had indeed resigned. 38.The Claimant equally alleged that Francis Munyao, the 2nd Respondent’s Deputy Treasurer, wrote a letter to stakeholders on 29th October 2025 informing them that the Elective AGM would be conducted on 22nd November 2025 at the 2nd Respondent’s Boardroom. We are equally at pains to accept that allegation given that neither the said letter nor a list of NCHA’s Officials was presented before this Tribunal. Nonetheless, we would have not hesitated to find the said letter invalid given that Francis Munyao was estopped by Article 5 of the 2nd Respondent’s constitution from holding an elective position in the NCHA. 39.In the premise, this Tribunal is persuaded that the NCHA elections held on 22nd November 2025 at Parklands Sports Club were illegal, procedurally flawed and null and void. The upshot is that the Claimant’s suit against the Respondents is merited 40.Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs follow the event. The Claimant having succeeded in this suit is awarded costs of the suit. 41.In the end, we make the following orders:i.A declaration be, and is hereby issued, that the Nairobi County Hockey Association elections held on 22nd November 2025 at Parklands Sports Club were illegal, procedurally flawed and null and void ab initio.ii.An order be, and is hereby issued, quashing all resolutions, elections and appointments arising from the Nairobi County Hockey Association elections held on 22nd November 2025 at Parklands Sports Club.iii.An order directing the Sports Registrar to supervise fresh elections within 60 days in strict compliance with the law.iv.In furtherance to Order (iii) above, the otherwise nullified office holders will retain residual powers and functions purely limited to effecting elections within 60 days.v.For the avoidance of doubt, the residual powers conferred under Order (iv) above will cease to exist after 60 days of this Judgement. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026SIGNED BY/FOR:HON. ALLAN MOLA OWINYI - (DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON)HON. EDDIE OMONDIHON. LUKE WAMUGUNDA