A. INTRODUCTION
1. Before this Court is the Notice of Motion dated 22nd February 2026 filed by the 3rd Petitioner pursuant to Articles 22, 23 and 258 of the Constitution. The application is supported by the affidavit sworn by the 3rd Petitioner.
2. The Applicant seeks, inter alia, interim and conservatory orders to preserve the tenure and operational authority of the current Cricket Kenya Council pending the hearing and determination of the Petition, as well as restraining orders against the 9th Respondent from acting as Chief Executive Officer of Cricket Kenya.
3. The Respondents oppose the application on both procedural and substantive grounds. Of particular significance is a preliminary objection to the effect that the supporting affidavit was commissioned by an advocate who allegedly lacked a valid practising certificate at the material time.
B. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: JURISDICTION
4. Before addressing the merits of the application, this Court must determine the threshold issue of jurisdiction, which is dispositive of the matter.
5. It is trite that jurisdiction is everything; without it, a court must down its tools. This principle was authoritatively stated in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1.
6. Section 58 of the Sports Act vests the Sports Disputes Tribunal (SDT) with jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals and disputes relating to sports organisations, including disputes concerning governance and elections.
7. The present dispute concerns the governance and election processes of Cricket Kenya, a national sports organisation. Such disputes fall squarely within the primary jurisdiction of the SDT.
8. The doctrines of exhaustion of statutory remedies and constitutional avoidance require that where a statutory dispute resolution mechanism exists, it must be invoked before recourse is made to the courts, save in exceptional circumstances. (See Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services Ltd [2014] eKLR; Ibrahim Wakhanyanga & Others v Chief Magistrate’s Court Kakamega & Others [2022] eKLR).
9. In Peter Ochara Anam & 3 Others v Constituencies Development Fund Board & 4 Others (Kisii H.C. Petition No. 3 of 2010), the Court cautioned against bypassing statutory mechanisms. Similarly, the Court of Appeal in Lilian Gogo v Joseph Mboya Nyamuthe & 4 Others (Civil Appeal No. 135 of 2017) emphasized strict adherence to prescribed statutory procedures.
10. The Applicant has not demonstrated the existence of exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the SDT.
11. In the premises, this Court finds that the Applicant ought first to have invoked the jurisdiction of the SDT, which is the body specifically mandated to handle disputes of this nature under Section 58 of the Sports Act.
12. Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present application and the Petition herein. The proceedings are premature and constitute an abuse of the court process.
13. Having so found, it is unnecessary to consider the remaining issues raised.
C. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS
14. The Petition and the Notice of Motion are hereby found to be premature and an abuse of the process of the Court.
15. Accordingly, both the Petition and the Notice of Motion dated 22nd February 2026 are hereby struck out.
D. OBSERVATION ON MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS
16. Before I conclude, I note that multiple suits have been instituted by different parties seeking substantially similar reliefs, including:
a. Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. E723 of 2025, Manoj Patel & Others v Sports Disputes Tribunal & Others;
b. Nairobi HCJR Misc. Application No. E369 of 2025, Manoj Patel & Kennedy Obuya v Sports Disputes Tribunal;
c. Nairobi HCJR Misc. 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;
f. Kisii Judicial Review No. E005 of 2026, Justus Nyabwengi Omari v Sports Disputes Tribunal & 9 Others.
17. This proliferation of 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 risks generating conflicting decisions from courts of concurrent jurisdiction, thereby undermining the coherence of the judicial process and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
E. DISPOSITION
18. In the upshot ;
a. The application dated 22.2.26 and the Petition herein are struck out .
b. Each party to bear his own costs since this is a public interest litigation.
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
17.4.26
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 IN THE PRESENCE OF :
Court Assistant – Onkundi;
Miss Metto holding brief for Mr. Koskei for the 1st and 2nd Petitioners;
The 3rd Petitioner appearing in person;
Mr. Kituku for the 3rd, 4th, 6th–9th Respondents and interested party ;
and Mr. Ondati for the 5th Respondent.
1. Before this Court is the Notice of Motion dated 22nd February 2026 filed by the 3rd Petitioner pursuant to Articles 22, 23 and 258 of the Constitution. The application is supported by the affidavit sworn by the 3rd Petitioner.
2. The Applicant seeks, inter alia, interim and conservatory orders to preserve the tenure and operational authority of the current Cricket Kenya Council pending the hearing and determination of the Petition, as well as restraining orders against the 9th Respondent from acting as Chief Executive Officer of Cricket Kenya.
3. The Respondents oppose the application on both procedural and substantive grounds. Of particular significance is a preliminary objection to the effect that the supporting affidavit was commissioned by an advocate who allegedly lacked a valid practising certificate at the material time.
B. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: JURISDICTION
4. Before addressing the merits of the application, this Court must determine the threshold issue of jurisdiction, which is dispositive of the matter.
5. It is trite that jurisdiction is everything; without it, a court must down its tools. This principle was authoritatively stated in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1.
6. Section 58 of the Sports Act vests the Sports Disputes Tribunal (SDT) with jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals and disputes relating to sports organisations, including disputes concerning governance and elections.
7. The present dispute concerns the governance and election processes of Cricket Kenya, a national sports organisation. Such disputes fall squarely within the primary jurisdiction of the SDT.
8. The doctrines of exhaustion of statutory remedies and constitutional avoidance require that where a statutory dispute resolution mechanism exists, it must be invoked before recourse is made to the courts, save in exceptional circumstances. (See Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services Ltd [2014] eKLR; Ibrahim Wakhanyanga & Others v Chief Magistrate’s Court Kakamega & Others [2022] eKLR).
9. In Peter Ochara Anam & 3 Others v Constituencies Development Fund Board & 4 Others (Kisii H.C. Petition No. 3 of 2010), the Court cautioned against bypassing statutory mechanisms. Similarly, the Court of Appeal in Lilian Gogo v Joseph Mboya Nyamuthe & 4 Others (Civil Appeal No. 135 of 2017) emphasized strict adherence to prescribed statutory procedures.
10. The Applicant has not demonstrated the existence of exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the SDT.
11. In the premises, this Court finds that the Applicant ought first to have invoked the jurisdiction of the SDT, which is the body specifically mandated to handle disputes of this nature under Section 58 of the Sports Act.
12. Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present application and the Petition herein. The proceedings are premature and constitute an abuse of the court process.
13. Having so found, it is unnecessary to consider the remaining issues raised.
C. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS
14. The Petition and the Notice of Motion are hereby found to be premature and an abuse of the process of the Court.
15. Accordingly, both the Petition and the Notice of Motion dated 22nd February 2026 are hereby struck out.
D. OBSERVATION ON MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS
16. Before I conclude, I note that multiple suits have been instituted by different parties seeking substantially similar reliefs, including:
a. Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. E723 of 2025, Manoj Patel & Others v Sports Disputes Tribunal & Others;
b. Nairobi HCJR Misc. Application No. E369 of 2025, Manoj Patel & Kennedy Obuya v Sports Disputes Tribunal;
c. Nairobi HCJR Misc. 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;
f. Kisii Judicial Review No. E005 of 2026, Justus Nyabwengi Omari v Sports Disputes Tribunal & 9 Others.
17. This proliferation of 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 risks generating conflicting decisions from courts of concurrent jurisdiction, thereby undermining the coherence of the judicial process and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
E. DISPOSITION
18. In the upshot ;
a. The application dated 22.2.26 and the Petition herein are struck out .
b. Each party to bear his own costs since this is a public interest litigation.
T. A. ODERA
JUDGE
17.4.26
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 IN THE PRESENCE OF :
Court Assistant – Onkundi;
Miss Metto holding brief for Mr. Koskei for the 1st and 2nd Petitioners;
The 3rd Petitioner appearing in person;
Mr. Kituku for the 3rd, 4th, 6th–9th Respondents and interested party ;
and Mr. Ondati for the 5th Respondent.