Manoj Patel & 1 other v Sports Disputes Tribunal

4. Specifically, the applicants assert that: On 3rd October 2025, the SDT issued ex-parte Orders restraining the ex-parte Applicants, which has led to the crippling of Cricket Kenya's operations and financial instability. That the ex-parte Applicants filed a substantive Notice of Motion dated 31st October 2025 seeking immediate discharge of these crippling Orders, on grounds including improper service of the application made by the claimants within SDT case no. E072 of 2025 requesting for the said orders, misrepresentation and lack of proper authority by the Claimants. 5. That the urgency, relating to the imminent collapse of Cricket Kenya and the jeopardization of international engagements (as detailed in the annexed Affidavits), was clearly documented in both the original Certificate of Urgency and the supplementary filing on 12th November 2025. 6. The applicants lament that despite the grave and documented urgency, the Respondent has remained administratively inert, failing to list the urgent application for hearing or issue any directions, thereby neglecting its statutory duty to provide timely justice; which alleged judicial inertia has caused the procedural injury to escalate into demonstrable, irreparable harm, defeating the very mandate of the Tribunal. 7. Having perused the application and the underlying issues raised, I am satisfied that the application is urgent. I certify it as urgent. On the merits thereof, I am satisfied that the intended substantive motion is not frivolous or hopeless. The applicants allege breach of their right to fair administrative action which is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair as guaranteed under Article 47 (1) of the Constitution, failure to exercise statutory mandate and unreasonableness, irrationality. Those are matters which this Court finds to be arguable for in depth inquiry and consideration at the substantive stage. I therefore grant leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review orders of mandamus and a declaration as sought in prayer 2 of the chamber summons dated 21/11/2025. 8. On whether the grant of leave does operate as a stay of the proceedings and order of the tribunal dated 3rd October, 2025 in the Sports Disputes Tribunal (SDT) Cause No. E072 of 2025, pending the hearing and determination of this Judicial Review Application, I observe that the applicants only seek to apply for mandamus and a declaration. Order 53 Rule 1 (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that: “ The grant of leave under this rule to apply for an order of prohibition or an order of certiorari shall, if the judge so directs, operate as a stay of the proceedings in question until the determination of the application, or until the judge orders otherwise:" 9. The applicants have not sought leave to apply for certiorari or prohibition and therefore this Court cannot grant a stay of any proceedings and order of the Tribunal as that would be acting outside the provisions of Order 53 Rule 1 (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules. 10. I therefore decline to grant the prayer for stay of proceedings or orders issued by the Tribunal. I direct the applicants to forthwith file and serve the substantive notice of motion within three (3) days of today and in a fresh substantive judicial review file. I make no orders as to costs of the application. 11. This file is closed. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 R.E. ABURILI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/18228/eng@2025-11-21 2

page 2 of 2