Taking a Sports Disputes Tribunal Decision to the High Court in Kenya

When the Sports Disputes Tribunal (SDT) rules against a federation, an athlete, an official or a club, the losing party’s first question is usually the same: can this go to the High Court? The Sports Act, 2013 does not answer that directly. It gives the Tribunal wide jurisdiction over sports disputes but says nothing about a right of appeal to the High Court. What exists instead is judicial review, a narrower route governed by Article 47 of the Constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. Understanding that distinction, and the procedural traps that come with it, matters for any federation, club or athlete dealing with the Tribunal, whatever the underlying dispute.

What the Sports Disputes Tribunal Actually Decides

Section 55 of the Sports Act establishes the Tribunal as an independent body chaired by a person qualified for appointment to the High Court, sitting with members who have legal or sports administration experience. Section 58 sets out its jurisdiction: appeals against decisions of national sports organisations where those organisations’ own rules allow an appeal to the Tribunal, including disciplinary decisions and appeals against non-selection for a Kenyan team or squad; other sports disputes that all parties agree to refer to it; and appeals from decisions of the Sports Registrar. Section 59 also lets the Tribunal apply alternative dispute resolution methods. In practice this makes the SDT the first port of call for almost every serious sports dispute in Kenya, from federation election contests to disciplinary bans and selection grievances.

Why There Is No Statutory Appeal, Only Judicial Review

Sections 58 to 65 of the Sports Act deal with the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, powers, staffing and offences. None of them says that a Tribunal decision is final, and none of them creates a right of appeal to the High Court or the Court of Appeal on a point of law. That silence leaves the matter to the general framework governing decisions of statutory tribunals: Article 47 of the Constitution, which guarantees a right to administrative action that is expeditious, efficient, lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair, and requires Parliament to legislate for court review of administrative action. That legislation is the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. A party unhappy with an SDT decision therefore does not file an “appeal” asking the High Court to substitute its own view of the merits. It applies for judicial review, which looks at how the decision was made rather than whether it was, in the court’s view, correct.

The Grounds for Judicial Review Under the Fair Administrative Action Act

Section 7(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act lists the grounds on which a court can review an administrative decision, including a tribunal decision. They include that the decision maker acted without jurisdiction or exceeded it; that there was actual or apparent bias; that a party was denied a fair hearing; that mandatory procedures were not followed; that the decision involved an error of law; that irrelevant factors were considered or relevant ones ignored; that the decision maker acted in bad faith or for an ulterior motive; and that the decision was unreasonable, disproportionate, or defeated a legitimate expectation. This is a wide net, but it remains a review of process and legality, not a rehearing of the sports dispute. An applicant who simply disagrees with the Tribunal’s factual findings, without pointing to one of these grounds, is unlikely to succeed. The application proceeds as judicial review proceedings in the High Court, typically framed against the Tribunal (or the Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal) as respondent, with the other parties to the original dispute joined as interested parties.

Exhaust Tribunal and Internal Remedies First

Section 9(2) of the Fair Administrative Action Act provides that the High Court shall not review an administrative action or decision unless internal mechanisms for appeal or review, and all other remedies available under any written law, have first been exhausted. This is not a technicality; it can be fatal to a case. In Kenya Motorsports Federation v Office of the Sports Disputes Tribunal; Sports Registrar & 6 others [2025] KEHC 3052 (KLR), the High Court struck out a judicial review application on a preliminary objection, holding that the applicant had not shown the Tribunal was inaccessible or incapable of dealing with its concerns, and that the door to seek relief within the Tribunal’s own proceedings remained open. Before running to the High Court, a party should be able to show it pursued whatever review was available before the Tribunal itself, or that no such internal remedy existed for the complaint being made.

Act Quickly: Timing and the Risk of a Moot Application

Judicial review has its own time pressures, and sport adds a further one: the underlying event a decision relates to (a selection, a competition, a season) often has a fixed date that will not wait for litigation. In Republic v Sports Disputes Tribunal; Maina & 3 others (Interested Parties); Kenya Swimming Federation (Ex parte Applicant) [2025] KEHC 5836 (KLR), the High Court dismissed a judicial review application over the selection of a team manager for the Paris 2024 Olympics because, by the time the matter could be heard, the Games had already taken place. The court held that it should not engage in an academic exercise once a dispute becomes incapable of practical resolution. The lesson is to file promptly and, where the underlying event is time-sensitive, to seek interim orders preserving the position while the review is pending, rather than let the calendar decide the dispute.