RagaHouse.com

Simon Odongo has named the Kenya Lionesses squad for Montevideo 🇺🇾 and São Paulo 🇧🇷 legs

Asati on what it would mean for Kenya 7s to be promoted back to the HSBC World Sevens Series

Kenya 7s coach Bling on the return of Brian Tanga

The Sports Dispute Tribunal (SDT) has ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Kenya Rugby Union (KRU) v the registered trustees of the Rugby Football Union of East Africa (RFUEA) suit, and that the predominant issue raised in the suit is a sports-related dispute within the meaning of Section 58(b) of the Sports Act. This is in relation to the dispute between KRU and RFUEA which shall now be listed for the hearing of the main suit. The Claimant was KRU, the 1st Respondent comprised the registered trustees of the RFUEA, the 2nd Respondent was the RFUEA itself while the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents are George N. Kariuki, Richard Omwela and Richard Njoba respectively, who are identified as the immediate former Chairman, Honorary Secretary and Treasurer of the defunct RFUEA. The Daily Nation recently reported that a demand by RFUEA for KRU to pay Ksh16.8m in rent sparked the despute over the ownership of RFUEA’s 10-acre land along Ngong road. This prompted KRU to seek legal redress from SDT, claiming ownership and charging that the RFUEA had refused to grant them documents for the land despite many attempts. The Respondents submitted that the core of the dispute before the Tribunal relates to landlord and tenant matters, which fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal or the Magistrates Court as provided under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Chapter 301 of the Laws of Kenya. The Claimant (KRU) contended that the determination of whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents are operating legally and have legal capacity to enter into contracts as sports organizations is a matter that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, as it concerns the regulation and governance of sports organizations under the Sports Act. SDT’s conclusion- “Having carefully considered the nature and character of the dispute before this Tribunal, and having applied the doctrine of predominant issue to identify the principal matter in contention, this Tribunal finds that the predominant issue in this suit is the legal status, existence and capacity of the 1st and 2nd Respondents as sports organizations under the Sports Act, and the governance and administration of rugby in Kenya. This is fundamentally and primarily a sports-related dispute that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 58(b) of the Sports Act”. “The questions of whether rent is payable, whether tenancy agreements exist, and the ownership and title to property are secondary and consequential issues that arise only after the determination of the primary issue of whether the 2nd Respondent continues to exist as a legal entity with capacity to own property, enter into contracts, and exercise proprietary rights. These secondary issues do not alter the essential character of the dispute as a sports-related matter, nor do they oust the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to determine the principal issue and all matters incidental or consequential thereto. To hold otherwise would be to elevate form over substance and to deny parties access to the very forum that Parliament created specifically for the determination of disputes of this nature” “This Tribunal is satisfied that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit, and that the predominant issue raised in the suit is a sports-related dispute within the meaning of Section 58(b) of the Sports Act”. The matter shall be listed for the hearing of the main suit.

The Sports Dispute Tribunal (SDT) has ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Kenya Rugby Union (KRU) v the registered trustees of the Rugby Football Union of East Africa (RFUEA) suit, and that the predominant issue raised in the suit is a sports-related dispute within the meaning of Section 58(b) of the Sports Act. This is in relation to the dispute between KRU and RFUEA which shall now be listed for the hearing of the main suit. The Claimant was KRU, the 1st Respondent comprised the registered trustees of the RFUEA, the 2nd Respondent was the RFUEA itself while the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents are George N. Kariuki, Richard Omwela and Richard Njoba respectively, who are identified as the immediate former Chairman, Honorary Secretary and Treasurer of the defunct RFUEA. The Daily Nation recently reported that a demand by RFUEA for KRU to pay Ksh16.8m in rent sparked the despute over the ownership of RFUEA’s 10-acre land along Ngong road. This prompted KRU to seek legal redress from SDT, claiming ownership and charging that the RFUEA had refused to grant them documents for the land despite many attempts. The Respondents submitted that the core of the dispute before the Tribunal relates to landlord and tenant matters, which fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal or the Magistrates Court as provided under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Chapter 301 of the Laws of Kenya. The Claimant (KRU) contended that the determination of whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents are operating legally and have legal capacity to enter into contracts as sports organizations is a matter that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, as it concerns the regulation and governance of sports organizations under the Sports Act. SDT’s conclusion- “Having carefully considered the nature and character of the dispute before this Tribunal, and having applied the doctrine of predominant issue to identify the principal matter in contention, this Tribunal finds that the predominant issue in this suit is the legal status, existence and capacity of the 1st and 2nd Respondents as sports organizations under the Sports Act, and the governance and administration of rugby in Kenya. This is fundamentally and primarily a sports-related dispute that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 58(b) of the Sports Act”. “The questions of whether rent is payable, whether tenancy agreements exist, and the ownership and title to property are secondary and consequential issues that arise only after the determination of the primary issue of whether the 2nd Respondent continues to exist as a legal entity with capacity to own property, enter into contracts, and exercise proprietary rights. These secondary issues do not alter the essential character of the dispute as a sports-related matter, nor do they oust the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to determine the principal issue and all matters incidental or consequential thereto. To hold otherwise would be to elevate form over substance and to deny parties access to the very forum that Parliament created specifically for the determination of disputes of this nature” “This Tribunal is satisfied that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit, and that the predominant issue raised in the suit is a sports-related dispute within the meaning of Section 58(b) of the Sports Act”. The matter shall be listed for the hearing of the main suit.

The Sports Dispute Tribunal (SDT) has ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Kenya Rugby Union (KRU) v the registered trustees of the Rugby Football Union of East Africa (RFUEA) suit, and that the predominant issue raised in the suit is a sports-related dispute within the meaning of Section 58(b) of the Sports Act. This is in relation to the dispute between KRU and RFUEA which shall now be listed for the hearing of the main suit. The Claimant was KRU, the 1st Respondent comprised the registered trustees of the RFUEA, the 2nd Respondent was the RFUEA itself while the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents are George N. Kariuki, Richard Omwela and Richard Njoba respectively, who are identified as the immediate former Chairman, Honorary Secretary and Treasurer of the defunct RFUEA. The Daily Nation recently reported that a demand by RFUEA for KRU to pay Ksh16.8m in rent sparked the despute over the ownership of RFUEA’s 10-acre land along Ngong road. This prompted KRU to seek legal redress from SDT, claiming ownership and charging that the RFUEA had refused to grant them documents for the land despite many attempts. The Respondents submitted that the core of the dispute before the Tribunal relates to landlord and tenant matters, which fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal or the Magistrates Court as provided under the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Chapter 301 of the Laws of Kenya. The Claimant (KRU) contended that the determination of whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents are operating legally and have legal capacity to enter into contracts as sports organizations is a matter that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, as it concerns the regulation and governance of sports organizations under the Sports Act. SDT’s conclusion- “Having carefully considered the nature and character of the dispute before this Tribunal, and having applied the doctrine of predominant issue to identify the principal matter in contention, this Tribunal finds that the predominant issue in this suit is the legal status, existence and capacity of the 1st and 2nd Respondents as sports organizations under the Sports Act, and the governance and administration of rugby in Kenya. This is fundamentally and primarily a sports-related dispute that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 58(b) of the Sports Act”. “The questions of whether rent is payable, whether tenancy agreements exist, and the ownership and title to property are secondary and consequential issues that arise only after the determination of the primary issue of whether the 2nd Respondent continues to exist as a legal entity with capacity to own property, enter into contracts, and exercise proprietary rights. These secondary issues do not alter the essential character of the dispute as a sports-related matter, nor do they oust the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to determine the principal issue and all matters incidental or consequential thereto. To hold otherwise would be to elevate form over substance and to deny parties access to the very forum that Parliament created specifically for the determination of disputes of this nature” “This Tribunal is satisfied that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit, and that the predominant issue raised in the suit is a sports-related dispute within the meaning of Section 58(b) of the Sports Act”. The matter shall be listed for the hearing of the main suit.