RULING
A.Introduction
1. Before the Court is the Notice of Motion dated 10th March 2026 in which the ex-parte Applicant principally seeks:
(i) review and setting aside of the orders made on 10th March 2026;
(ii) reissue and reinstatement of the stay orders granted on 23rd January 2026; and
(iii) an order restraining the 1st to 8th Interested Parties from holding or facilitating elections of the 9th Interested Party scheduled for 19th April 2026.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Justus Nyabwengi Omari sworn on 11th March 2026.
3. The application is opposed. The 3rd Interested Party, Pearlyne Omamo, swore a replying affidavit on 8th April 2026 contending, inter alia, that:
(a) this Court, on 10th March 2026, vacated the leave and stay orders granted on 23rd January 2026 and effectively closed the file;
(b) no substantive motion was filed within twenty-one (21) days as directed; and
(c) the Applicant lacks locus as he is not the Secretary of the Nyamira County Cricket Association.
The 3rd Interested Party also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27th February 2026 on the ground that the application offends the mandatory provisions of Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules. He also filed motion dated 20.2. 26 seeking to set aside the orders issued on 23.1.26 for non- compliance with directions to file substantive motion within 21 days .
4. The Applicant maintains that the Court erred in concluding that no substantive motion had been filed within time. He contends that a substantive judicial review application was filed on 5th February 2026 under HCJR No. E006 of 2026 and relies on Judiciary Receipt No. RB-0598233.
B. Background
5. The ex -parte applicant filed a Chamber Summons dated 23rd January 2026 seeking leave to file judicial review proceedings against the decision of the Sports Tribunal in case no . 72 of 2025. On 23rd January 2026 this Court granted leave to file judicial review proceedings and granted a stay of proceedings at the Sports Disputes Tribunal (SDT) and of all election-related activities by the Interested Parties. The applicant was ordered to file a substantive motion within 21 days from 23rd January 2026. On 10th March 2026 the Interested Parties informed the Court that no motion had been filed; the Court perused the file, found non-compliance with the order to file a substantive motion and vacated the leave and stay orders. The instant application was filed thereafter.
C. Issues for Determination
6. The issues for determination are:
a) Whether the Court is functus officio.
b) Whether the Court is functus officio.
c)Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition.
d) Whether the Applicant has established grounds for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
d) Whether the Applicant is entitled to reinstatement of the orders issued on 23rd January 2026 and the stay/injunctive reliefs sought.
e) What orders should issue as to costs.
E. Jurisdiction
9. It is trite law that Jurisdiction is fundamental; without it a court must cease to act (Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lilian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989) KLR 1). Section 58 of the Sports Act provides that the Sports Disputes Tribunal shall determine appeals and other sports-related disputes referred to it, including disciplinary and election-related disputes of national sports organizations whose rules allow appeals to the Tribunal.
10. The dispute concerns governance and elections of Cricket Kenya, a national sports body. Under Section 58 the SDT has primary jurisdiction to hear and determine election disputes of that body.
11. The doctrines of exhaustion of statutory remedies and constitutional avoidance require that statutory dispute resolution mechanisms be respected unless exceptional circumstances are shown (see Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services Ltd [2014] eKLR; Ibrahim Wakhanyanga & others v Chief Magistrate’s Court Kakamega & others [2022]).
12. In Peter Ochara Anam & 3 others v Constituencies Development Fund Board & 4 others (Kisii High Court petition No. 3 of 2010) the Court observed that litigants should not ignore a statutory dispute resolution mechanism that would address their concerns and rush to constitutional petitions. The Court of Appeal in Lilian Gogo v Joseph Mboya Nyamuthe & 4 others (Civil Appeal No. 135 of 2017) similarly emphasized strict adherence to statutory procedures where provided.
13. The Applicant has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing the SDT at this stage.
14. The ex parte applicant ought to have exhausted the jurisdiction of the SDT before moving this Court, as the SDT is the body clothed with jurisdiction to hear election and management disputes of sports bodies under Section 58 of the Sports Act.
15. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant application and the substantive motion filed in Judicial Review No. E006 of 2026. The proceedings are premature and constitute an abuse of the Court’s process.
16. In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to determine the remaining issues; the jurisdictional issue is dispositive.
F. Conclusion and Orders
17. The petition and the application are premature, an abuse of the process of the Court, and are struck out.
18. Before I conclude, I note that multiple suits have been instituted by different parties seeking orders substantially similar to those sought herein, namely:
a. Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. E723 of 2025, Manoj Patel & Others v Sports Disputes Tribunal & Others;
b. Nairobi HCJR Miscellaneous Application No. E369 of 2025, Manoj Patel & Kennedy Obuya v Sports Disputes Tribunal;
c. Nairobi HCJR Miscellaneous Application No. E387 of 2025, Manoj Patel & Kennedy Obuya v Sports Disputes Tribunal;
d. Nairobi Constitutional Petition No. E236 of 2026, Juliana Kathure & Kennedy Obuya v Sports Disputes Tribunal & Others;
e. Kisii Judicial Review No. E006 of 2026, Justus Nyabwengi Omari v Sports Disputes Tribunal & 9 Others.
The proliferation of these parallel proceedings offends the doctrine of sub judice and bears the hallmarks of forum shopping. Such conduct must be deprecated in the strongest terms, as it poses a real risk of conflicting decisions by courts of concurrent jurisdiction, thereby undermining the coherence of the judicial process and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
G.Disposition
19. In the upshot:
a) The Notice of Motion dated 10th March 2026 and the substantive motion filed in Judicial Review No. E006 of 2026 are struck out.
b) Each party shall bear its own costs.
T.A. ODERA
JUDGE
17 .4. 2026
Delivered virtually via Teams on this 17th day of April 2026 in the presence of:
CA-Onkundi and Mr. Okiri for the ex parte Applicant; Mr. Kituku for the 3rd, 4th, 6th–9th Interested Parties; and Mr. Ondati for the 5th Interested Party.
A.Introduction
1. Before the Court is the Notice of Motion dated 10th March 2026 in which the ex-parte Applicant principally seeks:
(i) review and setting aside of the orders made on 10th March 2026;
(ii) reissue and reinstatement of the stay orders granted on 23rd January 2026; and
(iii) an order restraining the 1st to 8th Interested Parties from holding or facilitating elections of the 9th Interested Party scheduled for 19th April 2026.
2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Justus Nyabwengi Omari sworn on 11th March 2026.
3. The application is opposed. The 3rd Interested Party, Pearlyne Omamo, swore a replying affidavit on 8th April 2026 contending, inter alia, that:
(a) this Court, on 10th March 2026, vacated the leave and stay orders granted on 23rd January 2026 and effectively closed the file;
(b) no substantive motion was filed within twenty-one (21) days as directed; and
(c) the Applicant lacks locus as he is not the Secretary of the Nyamira County Cricket Association.
The 3rd Interested Party also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27th February 2026 on the ground that the application offends the mandatory provisions of Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules. He also filed motion dated 20.2. 26 seeking to set aside the orders issued on 23.1.26 for non- compliance with directions to file substantive motion within 21 days .
4. The Applicant maintains that the Court erred in concluding that no substantive motion had been filed within time. He contends that a substantive judicial review application was filed on 5th February 2026 under HCJR No. E006 of 2026 and relies on Judiciary Receipt No. RB-0598233.
B. Background
5. The ex -parte applicant filed a Chamber Summons dated 23rd January 2026 seeking leave to file judicial review proceedings against the decision of the Sports Tribunal in case no . 72 of 2025. On 23rd January 2026 this Court granted leave to file judicial review proceedings and granted a stay of proceedings at the Sports Disputes Tribunal (SDT) and of all election-related activities by the Interested Parties. The applicant was ordered to file a substantive motion within 21 days from 23rd January 2026. On 10th March 2026 the Interested Parties informed the Court that no motion had been filed; the Court perused the file, found non-compliance with the order to file a substantive motion and vacated the leave and stay orders. The instant application was filed thereafter.
C. Issues for Determination
6. The issues for determination are:
a) Whether the Court is functus officio.
b) Whether the Court is functus officio.
c)Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition.
d) Whether the Applicant has established grounds for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
d) Whether the Applicant is entitled to reinstatement of the orders issued on 23rd January 2026 and the stay/injunctive reliefs sought.
e) What orders should issue as to costs.
E. Jurisdiction
9. It is trite law that Jurisdiction is fundamental; without it a court must cease to act (Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lilian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd (1989) KLR 1). Section 58 of the Sports Act provides that the Sports Disputes Tribunal shall determine appeals and other sports-related disputes referred to it, including disciplinary and election-related disputes of national sports organizations whose rules allow appeals to the Tribunal.
10. The dispute concerns governance and elections of Cricket Kenya, a national sports body. Under Section 58 the SDT has primary jurisdiction to hear and determine election disputes of that body.
11. The doctrines of exhaustion of statutory remedies and constitutional avoidance require that statutory dispute resolution mechanisms be respected unless exceptional circumstances are shown (see Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services Ltd [2014] eKLR; Ibrahim Wakhanyanga & others v Chief Magistrate’s Court Kakamega & others [2022]).
12. In Peter Ochara Anam & 3 others v Constituencies Development Fund Board & 4 others (Kisii High Court petition No. 3 of 2010) the Court observed that litigants should not ignore a statutory dispute resolution mechanism that would address their concerns and rush to constitutional petitions. The Court of Appeal in Lilian Gogo v Joseph Mboya Nyamuthe & 4 others (Civil Appeal No. 135 of 2017) similarly emphasized strict adherence to statutory procedures where provided.
13. The Applicant has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing the SDT at this stage.
14. The ex parte applicant ought to have exhausted the jurisdiction of the SDT before moving this Court, as the SDT is the body clothed with jurisdiction to hear election and management disputes of sports bodies under Section 58 of the Sports Act.
15. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant application and the substantive motion filed in Judicial Review No. E006 of 2026. The proceedings are premature and constitute an abuse of the Court’s process.
16. In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to determine the remaining issues; the jurisdictional issue is dispositive.
F. Conclusion and Orders
17. The petition and the application are premature, an abuse of the process of the Court, and are struck out.
18. Before I conclude, I note that multiple suits have been instituted by different parties seeking orders substantially similar to those sought herein, namely:
a. Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. E723 of 2025, Manoj Patel & Others v Sports Disputes Tribunal & Others;
b. Nairobi HCJR Miscellaneous Application No. E369 of 2025, Manoj Patel & Kennedy Obuya v Sports Disputes Tribunal;
c. Nairobi HCJR Miscellaneous Application No. E387 of 2025, Manoj Patel & Kennedy Obuya v Sports Disputes Tribunal;
d. Nairobi Constitutional Petition No. E236 of 2026, Juliana Kathure & Kennedy Obuya v Sports Disputes Tribunal & Others;
e. Kisii Judicial Review No. E006 of 2026, Justus Nyabwengi Omari v Sports Disputes Tribunal & 9 Others.
The proliferation of these parallel proceedings offends the doctrine of sub judice and bears the hallmarks of forum shopping. Such conduct must be deprecated in the strongest terms, as it poses a real risk of conflicting decisions by courts of concurrent jurisdiction, thereby undermining the coherence of the judicial process and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
G.Disposition
19. In the upshot:
a) The Notice of Motion dated 10th March 2026 and the substantive motion filed in Judicial Review No. E006 of 2026 are struck out.
b) Each party shall bear its own costs.
T.A. ODERA
JUDGE
17 .4. 2026
Delivered virtually via Teams on this 17th day of April 2026 in the presence of:
CA-Onkundi and Mr. Okiri for the ex parte Applicant; Mr. Kituku for the 3rd, 4th, 6th–9th Interested Parties; and Mr. Ondati for the 5th Interested Party.