The High Court has dismissed a preliminary objection seeking to stop a lawsuit involving officials and members of Vetlab Sports Club, holding that the dispute does not fall under the Sports Disputes Tribunal.
In its ruling, the court found that Vetlab Sports Club is not a sports organisation as defined under the Sports Act, 2013, meaning the Sports Disputes Tribunal has no mandate to hear the matter.
The case was filed by several plaintiffs against the club’s board of directors, including chairperson Allan Azegele, senior vice chairperson John Kariuki, golf captain Eric Karuga, lady captain Caroline Muguku and other directors. The Directorate of Veterinary Services, Waweru Njuguna, and about 200 club members were listed as interested parties.
The defendants had raised the objection, arguing that the High Court lacked jurisdiction and that the dispute should instead have been filed before the Sports Disputes Tribunal.
But the court rejected that argument, citing the Court of Appeal decision in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lilian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd and reaffirming that jurisdiction is the foundation of every judicial process.
“Jurisdiction is everything, and without it a court must down its tools,” the judge stated, adding that a court’s authority must flow from the Constitution or statute.
The court noted that while the club promotes sporting activities, particularly golf, it is registered as a society under the Societies Act and not under the Sports Act as a sports organisation.
The judge explained that for an entity to qualify as a sports organisation under Kenyan law, it must be registered under Section 46 of the Sports Act and issued with a certificate under Section 47—thresholds Vetlab Sports Club had not met.
The court further held that the dispute before it relates to the club’s internal governance and disciplinary processes, rather than issues arising from sporting competitions.
“Despite its sporting activities and interest in promoting sports, Vetlab Sports Club does not fall within the definition of a sports organisation under the Act,” the court said.
The ruling also emphasized that the Sports Disputes Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 58 of the Sports Act is strictly limited and cannot be expanded beyond what Parliament provided.
“The tribunal’s jurisdiction is strictly defined and strictly limited by statute,” the judge held.
In contrast, the High Court noted that it has original and unlimited jurisdiction in civil matters under Article 165 of the Constitution.
The court therefore found that it was properly seized of the matter and dismissed the preliminary objection with costs, allowing the substantive lawsuit to proceed to full hearing.
