Kenya is facing the possibility of another FIFA ban after the Mombasa Appellate Court halted the Football Kenya Federation (FKF) from holding a controversial Annual General Meeting (AGM). Judges A. K. Murgor, K. I. Laibuta, and G. V. Odunga dismissed FKF’s appeal to overturn a previous trial court ruling that prevented the local governing body from proceeding with the planned AGM.
FKF officials, including President Nick Mwendwa, Vice-President Doris Petra, Secretary General Barry Otieno, and the FKF electoral board, had filed the appeal as the first, second, third, and fourth applicants, respectively. However, the appellate court ruled that the case was now irrelevant since the matter in contention had already been overtaken by events. This development raises concerns about potential sanctions from FIFA, which could further impact Kenyan football.
“In the case before us, the order sought to be appealed against barred the holding of an Annual General Meeting of the 1st applicant. The meeting in question was scheduled for March 14, 2024 (now past),” the court ruled in part.
“If that was the position, then the application may well have been overtaken by events since the date on which the scheduled Annual General Meeting was to take place is now past,” the ruling read.
FKF went to the corridors of justice-seeking liberty to proceed with its mandate of convening a General Meeting.
“It is clear that what the applicant seeks is, in effect, an order that would pave way for it to convene an AGM and proceed with its preparations for the said Afcon games and other sporting activities unimpeded.
However, the judges ruled that granting the federation its wishes would automatically avert justice.
“Should that happen, we are unable to see how the trial court and even this Court in the intended appeal would effectively deal with the pending matters.
The court argued that it would find itself in a cumbersome state attempting to reverse its ruling should the trial court find FKF guilty.
“If, for example, the trial court was to find against the applicants, how would the events that would have taken place be reversed?”
“What is clear is that there are chances the grant of the orders in the manner sought would have the effect of pulling the rag from the feet of the trial court as well as this Court in the intended appeal.
“In other words, the purpose of a stay is not to determine the yet-to-be-heard proceedings before the court below or the intended appeal.”
The court disregarded a line of reasoning advanced by FKF lawyer Eric Mutua who claimed that his clients intend to persuade Fifa to indulge them in light of the pending proceedings.
“Being mindful of the necessity of preserving the subject matters of the dispute, we hereby decline to grant the orders of stay sought which, in any event, we are not persuaded because the initial date of the intended Annual General Meeting, has lapsed.
“Given the foregoing, the Motion dated 12th April 2024 fails and is hereby dismissed with costs,” ruled the court.
