Miruka & another v Sports Disputes Tribunal & another & 10 others (Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E101 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10579 (KLR) (Judicial Review) (13 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10579 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDICIAL REVIEW MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION E101 OF 2026 WM MUSYOKA, J JULY 13, 2026 BETWEEN KENNEDY OKELLO MIRUKA & ANOTHER ................................... APPLICANT AND THE SPORTS DISPUTES TRIBUNAL & ANOTHER .................... RESPONDENT AND KEZIAH ACHIENG ODERO & 9 OTHERS ......................... INTERESTED PARTY RULING 1. On 3rd July 2026, I granted leave herein, for the purpose of the filing of a motion for judicial review proceedings, with an order that that leave do operate as a stay. 2. The 1st interested party has come to court, with an application, dated 8th July 2026, principally seeking that the stay order be discharged or varied. The explanation is that the stay order is impeding the funding, by the relevant ministry, of a group of athletes, who are due to attend regional championships at Tunisia. 3. The 1st ex parte applicant has reacted to that application, by filing a replying affidavit, sworn on 13th July 2026, addressing a variety of issues, and conceding that there is a regional championship coming up, where some players, affiliated to the 2nd ex parte applicant, are due to travel. He argues that the funding hiccup has nothing to do with the stay order. 4. The application was argued orally, on 13th July 2026. I was addressed by Mr. Olieti for the applicant, the 1st ex parte applicant and some of the interested parties. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10579/eng@2026-07-13 1
page 1 of 2
5. What emerged is that there is a tournament coming up, in respect of which there could be funding challenges. It was not clear where the problem is arising from, for one side points at the stay order, while the other side raises other factors. What is clear, though, is that the leadership wrangles, and by extension the stay order, are contributing to it. 6. The dispute is over the governance of the 2nd ex parte applicant. The 2nd ex parte applicant exists for the benefit of the sport, and especially the youth who indulge in it. Some of the said youth have the opportunity coming up in about a week’s time, to travel to Tunisia, for a competition. Anything that would hinder their travelling would be contrary to the objectives for which the ex parte applicant was formed and exists. 7. Interim orders are granted at the discretion of the court, to promote fair play, pending hearing and disposal of the dispute in court. They are made for the benefit of all who are involved. The interests of the players, for whom the 2nd ex parte applicant was established, far outweigh the interests of the leaders, who are wrangling over the governance of the federation. 8. That being the case, the order, that commends itself to me, to make, is to vacate the stay order that I made on 3rd July 2026, to facilitate the processing of the finances that would enable the players to travel to Tunisia, for I believe that that would be what would serve the best interests of the players. Consequently, the application, dated 8th July 2026, is allowed, in terms of prayer 4 thereof. The matter shall be mentioned on 27th July 2026, as earlier scheduled. 9. Orders accordingly. DELIVERED, VIA CTS, DATED AND SIGNED IN CHAMBERS, AT MILIMANI, NAIROBI, ON THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 2026. W MUSYOKA JUDGE Mr. Abdirahman, Court Assistant. Advocates Mr. Olieti, instructed by Okwiri & Company, Advocates for the 1st interested party. Mr. Miruka, the ex parte applicant, in person. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10579/eng@2026-07-13 2
page 2 of 2