The repeated court battles over the start and composition of the 2026/27 Football Kenya Federation Premier League have exposed a deeper problem in Kenyan football: the unresolved overlap between the country’s ordinary courts and the specialised mechanisms created to settle sports disputes.

At the centre of the current crisis is the dispute over the applicable FKF rules, the promotion and relegation framework, and whether Kariobangi Sharks and Mombasa United should face a playoff before the new season begins. The successive court orders have already contributed to repeated postponements, leaving clubs preparing for a season whose composition remains unsettled.

FIFA’s framework is clear on the principle of sporting autonomy. Article 68 of the current FIFA Statutes says recourse to ordinary courts is prohibited unless FIFA regulations specifically provide for it, and requires member associations to provide arbitration through an independent tribunal recognized by the association or confederation, or through the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

The FKF Constitution contains a similar provision. Article 69 states that disputes affecting the federation, leagues, clubs, players and officials should not be submitted to ordinary courts unless FIFA regulations, the FKF Constitution or binding legal provisions specifically allow it. It further provides for arbitration before an independent tribunal recognized by FKF or CAF, or CAS in Lausanne.

That framework is intended to keep sporting disputes within specialised structures capable of dealing with the technical and time-sensitive nature of competition. In Kenya, the Sports Disputes Tribunal is established under the Sports Act, with jurisdiction defined under Section 58, while FKF’s own internal committees provide the first layer of dispute resolution.

The dispute-resolution architecture is therefore supposed to operate through a hierarchy rather than through competing forums. A 2025 SDT decision described the structure as internal federation mechanisms, followed by the Sports Disputes Tribunal and ultimately CAS.

Sports lawyer Elvis Majani believes the current dispute could have been avoided had FKF responded to Kariobangi Sharks’ demand over promotion and relegation at the outset. He argues that the matter should have been handled through the SDT, pointing to the dispute-resolution mechanisms provided under FIFA and CAF statutes.

“If this matter was expedited at the SDT, how did we find ourselves in the High Court?”

Majani questions, arguing that the movement of the dispute into the ordinary courts has complicated an issue that could have been addressed through the specialised sports-dispute system.

However, the Kenyan legal framework also recognizes the jurisdiction of the High Court in appropriate circumstances. Article 165 of the Constitution gives the High Court broad jurisdiction, and Kenyan courts have previously exercised judicial-review powers over decisions of sports bodies and tribunals. The issue, therefore, is not simply whether the High Court exists, but when its intervention is legally permissible and whether parties have exhausted the specialised mechanisms available to them.

That distinction is crucial in the current FKF dispute. The continued movement between the High Court and sports-dispute structures risks producing conflicting orders, uncertainty over which decision takes precedence and administrative paralysis within the federation.

Majani also believes the situation can still be contained before it develops into an international disciplinary matter. He says that if the dispute is not escalated to FIFA, the parties could withdraw the court proceedings and return to the established internal and sports-dispute mechanisms to seek a resolution.

At the same time, he cautions FKF leadership against ignoring existing court orders. According to Majani, the federation must consider and comply with the orders issued by the courts to avoid contempt proceedings rather than selectively overlooking decisions that may be inconvenient.

The danger extends beyond the immediate question of whether the league has 18 teams or whether Kariobangi Sharks and Mombasa United should play a playoff. If ordinary litigation becomes the regular route for determining competition structures, football administration could increasingly be shaped through injunctions and court proceedings rather than the established sporting framework.

More importantly, continued disregard of FIFA’s dispute-resolution requirements could expose Kenyan football to scrutiny and possible disciplinary consequences under the FIFA framework. FIFA statutes require member associations and football stakeholders to respect the established mechanisms for resolving disputes, and sanctions can be imposed where those obligations are breached.

A prolonged pattern of taking football disputes to ordinary courts, particularly where FIFA rules require arbitration, could therefore create a much bigger problem for FKF than the current league dispute. Depending on the circumstances and the nature of any violation, the consequences could include disciplinary measures against the parties involved and further intervention by FIFA.

The ultimate risk is that a domestic administrative dispute could develop into an international football governance issue, placing FKF under pressure to demonstrate that its dispute-resolution processes comply with FIFA statutes and that decisions affecting Kenyan football are being handled through the recognised legal and sporting channels.