Gor Mahia FC v Sports Disputes Tribunal & another; Ayisi (Interested Party) (Petition E170 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 3224 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Employment Court ruled the Sports Disputes Tribunal cannot hear employment disputes, quashing a Kshs 2.2 million award against Gor Mahia.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Sports Disputes Tribunal over employment disputes
The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the employment dispute between the club and its player; such jurisdiction lies with the Employment and Labour Relations Court under Article 162(2)(a).
Section 58(b) of the Sports Act permits the Tribunal to hear other sports-related disputes only where all parties agree to refer the dispute and the Tribunal agrees to hear it. Although the Tribunal agreed, no agreement by the parties to refer was shown. In any event, parties could not contract out of the constitutional jurisdiction conferred on the ELRC; such an agreement would be null and void.
Whether the petition was the proper procedure instead of an appeal
The petition was properly filed since the challenge was to the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the decision was a nullity.
The petitioner was entitled under Articles 23(1) and 258(1) to enforce the Constitution. Although an appellate route existed, the dispute concerned jurisdiction over an employment matter which belongs to the ELRC. The interested party's res judicata and appeal-route objections failed.
Whether the Attorney General was a necessary party
The Attorney General was a necessary party given the constitutional role as Principal Legal Adviser and the statutory jurisdictional design in question.
The petition concerned statutory jurisdictional design on which the Attorney General's opinion would count seriously, overriding the ground of opposition that this was a private employment contract matter.
Legal principles established
#- Parties cannot, by agreement, confer on a tribunal jurisdiction which the Constitution and statute have vested in another court.
- A decision by a tribunal without jurisdiction is a nullity and may be challenged by petition.
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the impugned Tribunal's decision is in violation of the Petitioner's right under Article 27(1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
- 2.Declaration that the impugned Tribunal's decision is in violation of the Petitioner's right under Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya
- 3.Declaration that the impugned Tribunal's decision is in violation of the Petitioner's right under Article 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya
- 4.Declaration that the 1st Respondent does not have jurisdiction over Employment Disputes under the Sports Act
- 5.Declaration that parties to a dispute cannot grant the Tribunal jurisdiction as set out at Section 58(b) of the Sports Act where the Constitution and the law have granted jurisdiction to another forum
- 6.Order of certiorari removing into the Employment and Labour Relations Court and quashing the decision in SDT Cause E004 of 2023
- 7.No orders on costs of the petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 23(1) and 258(1) of the Constitution; Article 162(2)(a) as read with the Employment and Labour Relations Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Gor Mahia FC v Sports Disputes Tribunal & another; Sydney Ochieng Wahongo (Interested Party)[2026] KEELRC 2636 (KLR)28 Sept 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gor Mahia FC v Sports Disputes Tribunal & another; Ayisi (Interested Party) (Petition E170 of 2023) [2023] KEELRC 3224 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Petition dated 31.08.2023 (SDT Cause E004 of 2023 impugned). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2023/3224/eng@2023-12-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.