The Sports Disputes Tribunal has quashed suspension of Mr Alexander Kiplagat Mutai (Sasha Mutai) as the chairperson of the Kenya Rugby Union (KRU) following a finding that the process was rushed and tainted with illegalities.
The tribunal chaired by Benard Wafula Murunga said the suspension of Mr Mutai was illegal and null as it violated the Kenya Rugby Constitution and the Board Charter.
"The meeting of the Board of Directors of Kenya Rugby Union held on March 6, 2025 and the resolution(s) passed to suspend Mr Mutai are in violation of the Kenya Rugby Constitution and Board Charter. In addition, they were not within the tenets of natural justice and are therefore illegal, null and void," said the tribunal.
Mr Mutai was suspended from office by KRU Board over alleged loss of confidence to members of the union.
However, while ruling on his application to quash the suspension, the tribunal reinstated him and stated that he is still the recognized chairperson. It stressed that he is entitled to all attendant benefits and any other privileges as of the occupier of that office.
The tribunal concurred with Mr Mutai's lawyer, Stephen Kipkenda, who argued that the meeting held by the Board to suspend the chairperson was full of procedural impropriety and was tainted with non-compliance of KRU Constitution.
For instance, Mr Kipkenda said while the Constitution says only the Chairman could call a meeting at any time, in the instant case the meeting was convened by the Honorary Secretary General.
Additionally, he stated that although such meeting should be called within 14 days of receipt of a requisition, in Mr Mutai's case the notice was issued by Honorary Secretary General on March 5, one day to the meeting.
Kenya Rugby Union Chairman Sasha Mutai address journalists during restructuring of their partnership in support of the men’s national 7s rugby team at RFUEA Grounds in Nairobi on November 13, 2024.
Photo credit: Lucy Wanjiru | Nation Media Group
The notice contained an agenda item listed as "Conduct of the Chairman Mr Alexander Kiplagat Mutai."
The lawyer said this statement lacked the requisite specificity to adequately inform his client of the particular charges he faced.
"The notice of the said meeting being issued by the Hon. Secretary instead of those conferred with such powers i.e. the Chairperson and in his absence the Vice Chairperson, constituted a breach of the provisions of the union’s constitution," said the lawyer.
He contended that the role of the Secretary is administrative, such as receiving requisitions and to carry out directives of those constitutionally empowered to call the meetings.
Mr Kipkenda added that a properly constituted Committee to investigate Mr Mutai's conduct was not established, a deficiency he argued constituted procedural unfairness.
"The Board's omission to form a disciplinary sub-Committee to inquire into the allegations against him represents a significant procedural flaw. This rendered Mr Mutai's subsequent suspension unlawful and in violation of the Union's governance framework," he told the tribunal.
For its part, the Board asked for dismissal of the case saying Mr Mutai has rushed to the tribunal prematurely. They said he sued without exhausting an internal dispute resolution mechanism.
On the issue of unlawful suspension, the Board maintained that the decision was made through a collective, consultative process involving Kenya Rugby Union affiliates, board’s officials and directors, documented through minutes, and guided by the board’s charter and code of conduct.
However, the tribunal ruled that the said internal mechanism was fundamentally flawed, unduly restrictive, and inadequate for ensuring impartial resolution of grievances. This is because it requires the aggrieved Board member to face the same Board for redress.
The tribunal added that there were no persuasive reasons supplied by the Board that could warrant a justifiable reason for the tribunal to overlook the non-compliance of procedures.
"As such, the tribunal finds that the meeting in question fails to meet its own Constitutional threshold of making its legitimacy, the authority of the Board cannot be upheld as such," it stated.
