The Lack of autonomy and independence of the sports tribunal in Kenya in comparison to the Courts Arbitration for Sports (CAS)

Abstract

The problem that arises from the fact that the current position of the SDT in Kenya is a paradox. In forming the SDT as a mandate of the Judiciary Service Commission, it made the Disputes Tribunal part of the Judiciary. This then implies that it is not an independent tribunal. It is subject to the whims of the Chief Justice in terms of appeals to decisions, and even costs. This is not the custom when it comes to international sports disputes in that they are meant to be specialized autonomous bodies. The Judiciary, and other judicial bodies have to be independent of other bodies and functions of government in order to dispense justice in an expedient manner. Though linked to the Executive through a system of checks and balances, fundamentally, the Judiciary and other quasi-judicial bodies like the SDT have to be free from influence by other arms of governance. The main problem with SDT is lack of clear regulation on appeal from national federations and appeals to CAS. Hopefully, it will be addressed in the future SDT procedural rules as it is not addressed in the Sports Act