Court dismisses Motorsport Federation case against Carl Tundo, two others

 Milimani Law Courts /FILE

The High Court in Nairobi has thrown out an appeal involving the Kenya Motorsport Federation after allegations surfaced that its official records listed deceased directors. 

The decision, delivered on April 30, marked an end to a governance feud within the Kenyan motorsport community without the court ever hearing the core of the dispute. 

The legal battle pitted the federation against prominent racing figures Carl Tundo, Erick G. Bengi and Sangita S. Gohil. 

The matter came to the High Court as an appeal from the Sports Disputes Tribunal, where the federation had sued the three respondents, with the Sports Registrar, the Attorney General and the 254 Motor Sports Club joined as interested parties. 

The tribunal record showed letters of resignation from directors of the federation and that two rival factions of directors had testified separately, adding to the confusion over who genuinely spoke for the organisation.

While the underlying conflict involved internal leadership contests and control over the sport, the appeal was strangled by a procedural requirement - the respondents filed a preliminary objection, claiming that the KMF lacked the authority to be in court. 

Despite being put on notice regarding these allegations, the federation failed to produce a current board resolution or a modern CR12 from the Companies Registry. 

This silence proved fatal. 

Justice Linus Kassan upheld a preliminary objection by Tundo, Bengi and Gohil, who argued that the federation had no locus standi [legal standing] to bring the appeal because it had not filed a current CR12 – the official companies register extract – or a fresh board resolution authorising the litigation. 

The CR12 on record was from 2023 and, according to the respondents, it “contained names of directors who are deceased".

The lack of a valid record therefore meant the court could not be certain that the people purporting to act for the federation actually had authority to do so. 

Justice Kassan held that while courts are ordinarily reluctant to dismiss a case on technicalities, the constitutional shield does not operate where a party has been given clear notice of a standing challenge and chooses to ignore it. 

"Ordinarily, where the issue of locus standi is raised, especially in a case like this (there is an old CR12 ), courts do not dismiss an appeal instantly but instead, a party is given time to regularise its documents in order to give effect to Article 159(2)(d) of the constitution. Courts are reluctant to rush into dismissing an appeal on technicalities where a matter is substantially before it.” 

The judge further noted that the federation’s internal chaos was evident from the lower tribunal's records, which showed rival factions of directors testifying against one another and numerous resignation letters. 

The appeal was dismissed with costs.