NAIROBI, Kenya — The High Court has dismissed a preliminary objection seeking to stop a lawsuit involving officials and members of Vetlab Sports Club, ruling that the dispute does not fall under the mandate of the Sports Disputes Tribunal.
In its decision, the court held that Vetlab Sports Club is not a sports organisation as defined under the Sports Act, 2013, and is therefore not subject to the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
The case was filed by several plaintiffs against the club’s board of directors, including chairperson Allan Azegele, senior vice chairperson John Kariuki, golf captain Eric Karuga, lady captain Caroline Muguku, and other directors.
The Directorate of Veterinary Services, Waweru Njuguna, and about 200 club members were listed as interested parties.
The defendants had challenged the suit, arguing that the High Court lacked jurisdiction and that the matter should instead be handled by the Sports Disputes Tribunal.
However, the court rejected the objection, relying on the landmark Court of Appeal decision in Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lilian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd, which underscores the central role of jurisdiction in judicial proceedings.
“Jurisdiction is everything, and without it a court must down its tools,” the judge observed, noting that a court’s authority must be derived from either the Constitution or statute.
In its analysis, the court found that although Vetlab Sports Club promotes sporting activities — particularly golf — it is registered as a society under the Societies Act, not under the Sports Act.
“For an entity to qualify as a sports organisation under Kenyan law, it must be registered under Section 46 of the Sports Act and issued with a certificate under Section 47,” the court ruled, adding that Vetlab Sports Club does not meet that statutory requirement.
The judge further noted that the dispute before the court centres on internal governance and disciplinary issues, rather than sporting competition or results, placing it outside the scope of the Sports Disputes Tribunal.
“Despite its sporting activities and interest in promoting sports, Vetlab Sports Club does not fall within the definition of a sports organisation under the Act,” the ruling stated.
The court emphasized that the tribunal’s mandate under Section 58 of the Sports Act is narrowly defined and cannot be extended beyond what is expressly provided by law.
“The tribunal’s jurisdiction is strictly defined and strictly limited by statute,” the judge held.
By contrast, the High Court was found to have original and unlimited jurisdiction in civil matters under Article 165 of the Constitution, making it the proper forum to hear the case.
The court consequently dismissed the preliminary objection with costs, paving the way for the substantive lawsuit against the Vetlab Sports Club leadership to proceed to a full hearing.
