[2022] KESDT 690 (KLR)

Victor Ashinga v Club (Tribunal Case E004 of 2022) [2022] KESDT 690 (KLR) (5 July 2022) (Decision)

Neutral citation: [2022] KESDT 690 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Sports Disputes Tribunal

Tribunal Case E004 of 2022

J Njeri Onyango, Chair, Peter Ochieng & E. G. Kiplagat, Members

July 5, 2022

Between

Victor Ashinga

Claimant

and

Mathare United Football Club

Respondent

Decision

Representationi)Mr Njeru Benjamin Mutaku for the Claimantii)No Appearance for the Respondent

Definitions'Contract' shall mean this fixed term contract of employment between the Club and the footballer.'Club or 'the Club' shall mean the football club that enters into this contract'FIFA' shall mean the Federation of International Football Association'Footballer' or 'the footballer' shall mean the footballer that enters into this contract'CAF' shall mean the Confederation of African Football.'KPL' shall mean the Kenyan Premier League'FKL' shall mean Football Kenya Limited, the umbrella Football Association for the time being in Kenya.'Football Rules' shall mean theConstitution, Statutes and Rules and Regulations of the KPL, FKL CAF and/or FIFA as amended from time to time'KPL rules' shall mean theConstitution and Rules and Regulations of the Kenyan Premier League as amended from time to time'Football' shall mean the sport of association football played under the auspices of FIFA and its affiliates'period of the contract' shall mean the period recorded in the schedule of the contract'date of the termination' shall mean the date of this contract expires as recorded in the schedule to this contract'football tribunals' shall mean the disciplinary and dispute resolution tribunals and forums contemplated in the football rules.'Employment Act' shall mean the Basic conditions of the Employment Act, (Act No 11 of 2007) Laws of Kenya as amended from time to time.'Labour Act' shall mean the Labour Relation Act, (Act No 14 of 2007) Laws of Kenya as amended from time to time

Applicable Statutes/lawi.The FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Playersii.TheConstitution of Kenya 2010iii.The Employment Act Cap 226 Laws of Kenyaiv.Sports Act 2013v.TheConstitution of Football Kenya Federation (2017)

Parties 1. The Claimant is described as an adult of sound mind residing and working for gain in Kenya. He is a professional football player (hereinafter the Claimant.

2. The Respondent is a football club (hereinafter the Respondent) established in the Republic of Kenya and recognized under the provisions of the Sports Act 2013 which is also affiliated to the Football Kenya Federation (FKF)

Jurisdiction 3. The Sports Disputes Tribunal jurisdiction has been invoked by the Claimant under the provisions of Sections 58 and 59 of the Sports Act No 25 of 2013 which provides as follows:-'The Tribunal shall determine—(a)Appeals against decisions made by national sports organizations or umbrella national sports organizations, whose rules specifically allow for appeals to be made to the Tribunal in relation to that issue including —(i)Appeals against disciplinary decisions;(ii)Appeals against not being selected for a Kenyan team or squad;(b)Other sports-related disputes that all parties to the dispute agree to refer to the Tribunal and that the Tribunal agrees to hear; and(c)Appeals from decisions of the Registrar under this Act.'Section 59 of the Sports Act states further that:'The Tribunal may, in determining disputes apply alternative dispute resolution methods for sports disputes and provide expertise and assistance regarding alternative dispute resolution to the parties to a dispute.'

4. Under Clause 2. 3 of the contract of Employment between the parties dated June 23, 2017, jurisdiction is defined as2. 3. JurisdictionThis agreement will be construed according to the laws of the Republic of Kenya, applicable to agreements that are signed and performed within the Republic of Kenya but in light of and in accordance with the football rules generally and KPL rules specifically.

Background 5. The Claimant filed his Statement of Claim dated February 2, 2022 on February 7, 2022. He also filed the following documentsi)List of Documentsa)A copy of the Letter of Demand dated June 19, 2018b)The contract between the Claimant and the Respondentc)A copy of Claim filed with the FKF Player Status Committeed)A copy of E-mail screenshot dated October 2, 2021e)A copy of Request for Response dated October 21, 2021f)Any other documents will be adduced with leave of the Tribunalii)Verifying Affidavitiii)Witness Statement

6. The Claimant’s position is that that he entered into a written employment contract with the Respondent dated January 9, 2017. It was a 2-year contract to provide professional football services as a player for the Respondent. The Respondent contrary to the contract unilaterally terminated the said contract by a letter dated November 30, 2017. The Respondent did not assign any reasons for such termination.

7. The matter was placed before the Chairperson of the Sports Disputes Tribunal Mr John M Ohaga, SC, FCIArb who on February 9, 2022 made the following DirectionsUpon Perusal of the Statement of Claim, the Statement of Victor Ashinga and all other documents as filed by Counsel for the Claimant on the February 8, 2022, the Tribunal hereby directs and orders as follows: 1. The Claimant is hereby directed to serve the Respondent with the Statement of Response together with these Directions within five (5) days of receipt of these Directions;

2. The Respondent to file and serve upon the Claimant its Statement of Response within fourteen (14) days of service of upon it of the Statement of Claim;

3. The Claimant to file and serve upon the Respondent his reply to the Response, if any, within seven (7) days of service of the Statement of Response;

4. The matter will be listed for Mention on the March 15, 2022 at 2. 30pm via Microsoft Teams or such other medium as the Tribunal shall determine confirm compliance with the present directions and set a date for the hearing of the matter;

5. The panel to hear the matter shall comprise ofi.Mrs Njeri Onyango - Presidingii.Mr Peter Ochieng - Memberiii.Mr E Gichuru Kiplagat – Member

8. This matter was mentioned before the panel on March 15, 2022. The panel being satisfied that the Respondent had been duly served with a Mention Notice for the day made further directions as followsUpon Mention of this matter by the Tribunal on the March 15, 2022, the Tribunal hereby directs, and orders as follows: 1. The Respondent to file and serve a response within 14 days of service

2. The Claimant to file and serve a response within 7 days of service thereof.

3. The matter is listed for mention on April 12, 2022 at 2. 30pm via Microsoft Teams or any such medium as the Tribunal may so direct for further directions

4. The panel to remain as previously allocated.

9. The matter was again mentioned before the panel on April 12, 2022. The panel being satisfied that the Respondent had been served with a Mention Notice but had yet to file a Response to the Claim directed that the matter be heard on April 27, 2022. The Claimant was ordered to serve a hearing Notice upon the Respondent.

10. On April 27, 2022, the Respondent did not attend and had also not filed any Response. The panel proceeded to hear the Claimant’s Claim.

11. The Claimant at the hearing elected to adopt his written Witness Statement dated February 2, 2022 filed together with the Statement of Claim. He also produced the various documents file with his Claim. He confirmed that his contract with the Respondent was terminated.

12. Upon closing of the Claimant’s case, the panel directed that the Claimant’s Counsel to file written submissions. The submissions were filed on May 18, 2022.

Claimant’s Case 13. By the Statement of Claim filed on February 7, 2022, the Claimant stated that on June 23, 2017, the Claimant and the Respondent entered into a written contract of employment for a period of 2 years ( hereinafter 'the contract'). The Claimant under the contract would provide services as a professional football player on the following basic termsa.Period February 23, 2017 to June 31, 2019b.Monthly salary Kshs 35,000/= per month payable monthly in arrearsc.The contract could be terminated by giving 1 (one) months’ notice prior to its expiry if21. Termination Of Employment

Notwithstanding the fact that this is a fixed term contract, the club may terminate this agreement by the giving of 1 (one) month’s written notice prior to its expiry if: 21. 1. The footballer is found guilty of misconduct justifying dismissal

21. 2 The footballer is found to be incapable of completely fulfilling the job for which he has been employed

14. According to the Claimant, he was entitled to various bonuses which he has however not particularized.

15. The Claimant stated that he Faithfully attended all training sessions and played multiple games for the Respondent. However, the Respondent stopped paying his salary and allowances which at one time accumulated to 2 months’ arrears.

16. He further states at paragraph 5 and 6 of his Written Statement as follows5. That later on I received a document from the team CEO/Secretary General, which I was required to sign, in order for me to have any outstanding salary and allowances paid. I was desperate and broke and therefore signed the document on the assumption that it only related to my unpaid dues. It later turned out that the document was actually a discharge of the Respondent, effectively terminating my contract with the club. 6. That I was never given any notice of the intended termination, despite of the fact that Clause 21 of the contract that we signed specifically requires that a notice of one month be issued. In addition, I was never given an opportunity to be heard on my position on the whole matter. The acts of the Respondent were therefore fraudulent.

17. The Claimant’s position is that he was entitled toi)A month’s notice or payment of the equivalent of a one month’s salary in lieu of Noticeii)A fair procedure in the event of termination of the contract being contemplated

18. The Claimant pleaded therefore that the termination of his contract was fraudulent and in breach of the terms of the contract and the same violated the provisions of the Employment Act, 2007 and FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players which govern the contracts of Football players in Kenya. He sets out the following particulars of breachParticulars Of Breach(a)The purported termination of contract was effected without the requisite formal Notice and also without payment in lieu of Notice contrary to the provisions of sections 35 and 36 of the Employment Act 2007;(b)The purported termination of the contract was so done without any or any just cause contrary to article 14 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players;(c)The purported termination of contract was done during the continuance of the Kenyan Premier League Season and with a substantial part of the term of the contract still remaining to be performed contrary to articles 13 and 16 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players which requires that a contract between a professional and a club only be terminated upon expiry of the term of the contract or by mutual agreement;(d)The purported termination was done without issuance of any warnings or explanations for the reason of termination, in breach of the provisions of Section 41 of the Employment Act, 2007;(e)The Respondent failed to comply with the provisions of Articles 8, 14 and 17 of the standard form contracts which defined what constitutes fair procedure in instances where it is necessary to institute disciplinary processes against a player and in the process denied the Claimant any opportunity to be heard.(f)The Respondent failed, refused and ignored to pay the Respondent’s salaries, bonuses and other emoluments for a period of two months and thereby breached the provision of Article 12bis Paragraph 1 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which obligates a club to comply with their financial obligations towards players as per the terms stipulated in the contract signed with their players and in the transfer agreements;(g)Failing to act bona fides towards the Claimant and taking advantage of the Claimant’s difficult situation to terminate the Claimant’s contract.

19. The Claimant stated that he was greatly inconvenienced by the actions of the Respondent as he was subjected to lengthy lay-offs, having been unable to secure alternative employment as FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players barred him from switching to alternative clubs. The said breaches therefore entitled the Claimant to compensation as followsParticulars of Compensation For BreachTableTRTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 13%}ItemNumberTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 70%}ParticularsTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 15%}AmountClaimed(IN KSHS)TRTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 70%}Payment of one month’s salary in lieu of noticeTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 15%}35,000. 00TRTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 70%}Payment of compensation being the equivalent of the total salaries for 18 months, the uncompleted period of the contractTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 15%}630,000. 00TRTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 70%}Damages equivalent to twelve months’ salary in view of the fact of injury in the course of employmentTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 15%}420,000. 00TRTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 70%}Unpaid bonusesTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 15%}256,000. 00TRTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 70%}Unpaid Salaries of two monthsTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 15%}70,000. 00TRTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 70%}TOTALTC{style border: 1px solid #000; width: 15%}1,411,000. 00

20. The Claimant relied on his Advocates letter of demand dated June 19, 2018 which received no response from the Respondent. He therefore seeks the following prayersa)A declaration that the purported termination of the Claimants’ contracts by the Respondent was unfair and illegal;b)Awards of monetary compensation to the Claimant and against the Respondent in the sum of Kenya Shillings One Million, Four Hundred and Eleven Thousand Only (Kshs 1,411,000/=)c)Costs of this claim ;d)Interest on (a) and (b) at such rates as the Tribunal may decide in the event of default of payment by the Respondent; ande)Any other relief that this Honourable Tribunal deems fit to grant

Respondent’s Case 21. The Respondent did not file any response to the Claimant’s Claim. The panel based on the various Affidavits of Service filed, was satisfied that the Respondent had been duly served with the Claim documents and directions issued by the Tribunal through its available and known email address and was also notified of the hearing.

Claimant’s Evidence 22. The Claimant supported his Claim with various documents as filed with the Claima)A copy of the Letter of Demand dated June 19, 2018b)The contract between the Claimant and the Respondentc)A copy of Claim filed with the FKF Player Status Committeed)A copy of E-mail screenshot dated October 2, 2021e)A copy of Request for Response dated October 21, 2021f)Any other documents will be adduced with leave of the Tribunal

23. At the hearing, the Claimant adopted his written Witness Statement and also produced the documents as per the list of documents above. He confirmed the contents of his Witness Statement, he further stated that to his best ability, he had discharged his obligations as a player and that there had been no complaint raised by the Respondent regarding his performance.

Respondent’s Evidence 24. The Respondent though served did not file any responses or provide a Witness Statement. The Respondent was also not represented at the hearing and did not therefore present any evidence or challenge the Claimant’s testimony.

Claimant’s Submissions 25. The Claimant’s Counsel filed written submissions on May 18, 2022. According to the Claimant, the issues for determination area)Whether the Claimant was contracted to the Respondentb)Whether due process was followed in the Claimant’s terminationc)Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages sought in the statement of claim dated February 2, 2022

26. The Claimant puts reliance on the contract between the parties dated June 23, 2017 which it is submitted was not respected by the Respondent contrary to FIFA Regulations Articles 13 and 14 which provides13. Respect of contractA contract between a professional and a club may only be terminated upon expiry of the term of the contract or by mutual agreement.

14. Terminating a contract with just causeA contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause.

27. The Claimant therefore contends that there was no 'just cause' to terminate his contract. Further that the situation was compounded by the fact that the termination occurred 'during the pendency of a football season' which prevented him from the opportunity to obtain alternative employment in another club, which action is also contrary to FIFA Regulations which expressly bar parties from terminating a contract midway through the season, but more so without warning. Counsel relied on the decision in CAS 2017/A/5228[Club A] v [Player X] & [Club B.] Par 99 of for Sport has previously held that:-‘for a party to be allowed to validly terminate an employment contract, it must have warned the other party, in order for the letter to have had the chance, if it deemed that the complaint to be legitimate, to comply with its obligations’(CAS 201/A/3091-3093)

28. The Claimant also submits that the Respondent violated the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the Employment Act 2007 by failing to remit the Claimant’s wages. He also submits that the Respondent breached Clauses 16 and 17 of the parties contract by failing to avail the Claimant due process as set out therein and terminated his contract without a hearing. This it is submitted is also contrary to Article 47 of theConstitution of Kenya 2010 and Section 41 of the Employment Act 2007

29. In regard to the Claims for Damages, the Claimant seeksa.Payment of one month’s salary in lieu of noticeb.Damages equivalent to 12 months’ salaryc.Payment of compensation equivalent to the remaining months (18) of the contractd.Unpaid salaries for 2 months preceding the termination

30. The Claimant puts reliance on Section 45 of the Employment Act and states that unfair termination is proven when the 'employer is unable to prove the reason for the termination' or that the reason for the termination is fair and valid or the termination was done according to a 'fair procedure.'

31. The Claimant also relies on Section 49 (1) of the Employment Act 2007 and submits that a Court dealing with an employee who has been unfairly terminated from his employment should take regard to inter-aliaa.The wages which the employee would have earned had the employee been given the period of notice to which he was entitled under this Act or his contract of service;b.Where dismissal terminates the contract before the completion of any service upon which the employee’s wages became due, the proportion of the wage due for the period of time for which the employee has worked; and any other loss consequent upon the dismissal and arising between the date of dismissal and the date of expiry of the period of notice referred to in paragraph (a) which the employee would have been entitled to by virtue of the contract; orc.The equivalent of a number of months wages or salary not exceeding twelve months based on the gross monthly wage or salary of the employee at the time of dismissal

Analysis And Determination 32. The panel having read the Claimant’s pleadings, the documents produced, the witness Statement and having heard the Claimant and having reviewed the Claimant’s written submissions, determines that the issues for determination are:-i)Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine this case?

Depending on the outcome of (i) aboveii)Whether termination of the Claimant’s contract was unfair or unlawful?iii.what is the appropriate award to the Claimant?

i. Whether the Tribunal has Jurisdiction to hear and determine this case 33. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal to hear and determine matters brought before it, stems from Section 58 of the Sports Act which provides as follows:'The Tribunal shall determine—(c)Appeals against decisions made by national sports organizations or umbrella national sports organizations, whose rules specifically allow for appeals to be made to the Tribunal in relation to that issue including —(iii)Appeals against disciplinary decisions;(iv)Appeals against not being selected for a Kenyan team or squad;(d)Other sports-related disputes that all parties to the dispute agree to refer to the Tribunal and that the Tribunal agrees to hear; and(c)Appeals from decisions of the Registrar under this Act.'

34. Section 59 of the Sports Act states further that:'The Tribunal may, in determining disputes apply alternative dispute resolution methods for sports disputes and provide expertise and assistance regarding alternative dispute resolution to the parties to a dispute.'

35. The current dispute stems from a Contract of Employment dated June 23, 2017 entered between the Claimant and the Respondent. The Claimant is unhappy because the Respondent terminated this contract allegedly without lawful cause.

36. The Claimant claims that the termination was unfair, irregular and in complete contravention of Article 13 of FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. The Claimant also relies on Sections 17,47 and 49 of the Employment Act.

37. This being a claim arising from a football player who had been contracted by a football club we find that the dispute falls within the definition of section 58(b) as 'other sports related disputes'. However, section 58 (b) cannot be fully invoked if all parties in the dispute did not consent to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and if the Tribunal did not agree to hear the claim.

38. This was well explained by this Tribunal in Dennis Kadito v Sofapaka FC (SDT Appeal No 23 of 2016). The Tribunal grappled with section 58 (b) of the Sports Act. This is what the Tribunal said:'As already stated in sports-related dispute such as this one the provision of section 58 (b) can only be satisfied where there is prior agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of this tribunal for example as a term of the contract or subsequent to the dispute the parties enter into a consent to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In the absence of any of these circumstances, the Tribunal cannot act without the protection of the law.'

39. Despite the fact that the Respondent in Kadito above opted not to participate in the proceedings, the Tribunal made a finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter as the parties did not consent to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as per section 58 (b). Secondly, the Tribunal opined that jurisdiction under section 58 (b) can also be invoked if it is included as a term of the contract of employment by the parties. This is also not the case here.

40. Similarly, in Mwinyi Kibwana Shami v KCB FC SDT No 22 of 2019, the Tribunal arrived at the same outcome as the Claimant did not consent to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal did not also find any clause in the contract invoking section 58 (b) of the Sports Act.

41. Clause 22 of the contract between the Claimant and the Respondent Provides for Dispute Resolution in the following terms:-22. Dispute Resolution

22. 1 All disputes arising out of or relating to this contract, including disputes as to the meaning or interpretation of any provision of this contract or as to the carrying into effect of any such provision or as to the termination or consequences of termination shall be referred to Dispute Resolution in accordance with the KPL rules from time to time.

22. 2 the parties warrant that, in accordance with the football rules, any and all disputes of whatsoever nature shall be determined in accordance with the KPL rules and in the Dispute Resolution Tribunals of the KPL rather than before any court or other Tribunal in so far as it is a requirement of FIFA and other footballing rules that the internal dispute resolution mechanisms available in football should be utilized by participants in the game save where the football rules do not provide an appropriate tribunal to determine the dispute.

42. Article 8 of the FKF Constitution provides as follows:-'The bodies and officials of FKF must observe the Statutes, regulations, directives, decisions and Code of Ethics of FIFA of CAF and FKF in their activities.Every person and organization involved in the game Association Football in FKF’s territory is obliged to observe the relevant Constitution, Regulations, decisions of FKF and the principles of fair play as well as the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship.

43. We have scrutinized the contract and the relevant provisions including clause 22 and we are unable to find any provision that invokes the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in terms of section 58 (b) of the Sports Act, or in terms of the decision of Dennis Kadito cited above.

44. The question of jurisdiction was determined in the celebrated case of Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1 where the Court stated that:-'Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a Court has no power to make one more step. Where a Court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A Court of Law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.'

45. John Bacroft Saunders in a treatise headed Words and Phrases Legally Defined-Volume 3: I-N the Author states at page 113 the following on the issue of jurisdiction:-'By jurisdiction is meant the authority which the Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by the Statute, Charter or Commission under which the Court is constituted, and may be extended or restricted by the like means. If no restrictions or limits is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the nature of actions and matters of which the particular Court has cognizance or as to the area over which the jurisdiction shall extend, or it may partake of both these characteristics. If the jurisdiction of an inferior Court or tribunal (including an arbitrator) depends on the existence of a particular state of facts, the Court or tribunal must inquire into the existence of the facts in order to decide whether it has jurisdiction; but, except where the Court or tribunal has been given power to determine conclusively whether the facts exists. Where a Court takes it upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess its decisions amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before Judgment is given.'

46. The Court of Appeal in Phoenix of EA Assurance Company Ltd v SM Thiga t/a Newspaper Services Ltd [2019] eKLR, observed that:-'It is a truism jurisdiction is everything and is what gives a Court or tribunal the power, authority and legitimacy to entertain any matter before it. What is jurisdiction? In common English parlance, jurisdiction denotes the authority or power to hear and determine the judicial disputes or to even take cognizance of the same. This definition clearly shows that before a Court can be seized of a matter, it must satisfy itself that it has authority to hear it and make a determination. If a Court therefore proceeds to hear a dispute without jurisdiction, then the result will be a nullity ab initio and any determination made by such Court will be amenable to being set aside ex debito justiciae.'

47. The Claimant relies heavily on the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players. Article 24 provides for a Dispute Resolution Chamber. However, in the Shami case above the Tribunal stated that:'FIFA is only competent to hear disputes between a club and player of an international dimension. As the dispute between the parties are of a local dimension, FIFA will not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute.'

48. The Claimant plays for a local club and we found no material placed before us showing that he is a player of an international dimension so as to fall within the FIFA jurisdiction.

49. The Claimant also relied on the Employment Act in his pleadings. However, Section 90 of the Act states that:'Nothwistanding the provisions of section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act, no civil action or proceedings based or arising out of this Act or contract of service in general shall lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three years next after the act, neglect or default complained or in the case of continuing injury or damage within twelve months next after cessation thereof.'

50. The claimant filed this claim on February 7, 2022 yet the action arose on or about December, 2017. He moved this Tribunal after a period of about four years. The Claimant certainly slept on his rights and was indolent. The Tribunal therefore lacks legal basis to entertain this claim based on the Employment Act.

51. The Tribunal for the reasons stated finds that it has no jurisdiction to hear this claim in terms of section 58(b) of the Sports Act and section 90 of the Employment Act.

52. The Tribunal therefore finds it unnecessary and unable to answer issues (ii) and (iii) that it had framed for determination.

Conclusions 53. It is therefore in consideration of this, as well as the Claimant’s submissions that the Tribunal makes the following orders:a) The Statement of Claim dated on February 2, 2022 is hereby struck out.b) Each party shall bear its own costs.

DATED THIS 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022MRS. J NJERI ONYANGO, PANEL CHAIR MR. PETER OCHIENG, MEMBER.............................................................MR. GICHURU KIPLAGAT , MEMBER