SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Linus Gerald Marangu v Major Rtd Suleiman Sumba & 3 others [2021] KESDT 123 (KLR)

[2021] KESDT 123 (KLR) KESDT
Read PDF
Court
KESDT
Case number
123
Citation
[2021] KESDT 123 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeSports DisputePostureAppeal from a decision of the Sports Disputes TribunalCoramMrs. Elynah Shiveka, Mrs. Njeri Onyango
Holding

The Tribunal's jurisdiction was not established as there were no appropriate internal dispute resolution mechanisms within the respondent's organization.

Facts

The applicant, Linus Gerald Marangu, was removed as a coach from the Kenya Taekwondo 2020 Tokyo Olympics Team. He filed an application to the Sports Disputes Tribunal seeking to stay the suspension and to be reinstated as a coach.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's application
  2. Whether the actions and decisions by the respondents were procedurally and substantively lawful

Reasoning

The Tribunal's jurisdiction was not established as there were no appropriate internal dispute resolution mechanisms within the respondent's organization. The Tribunal's jurisdiction would be appellate, but the applicant should have exhausted internal mechanisms before approaching the Tribunal.

Outcome

The applicant's application was dismissed.

Orders

  • All letters cancelling the applicant's appointment are null and void
  • The applicant is restrained from interference, blocking access, or denial of his duties as a coach
  • The applicant is reinstated to the camp, granted full access to the Taekwondo team, and provided with all benefits attendant thereto

Remedies

  • Reinstatement of the applicant as a coach
  • Full access to the Taekwondo team
  • All benefits attendant to the applicant's position as a coach

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Sports Act 2013
  • Constitution of the Kenya Taekwondo Federation
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case