- A former St Patrick’s Iten High School student is challenging his removal from Kenya’s disability chess team.
- The player claims he was dropped hours before departure for the 2025 Chess Olympiad in Kazakhstan.
- The Sports Disputes Tribunal has dismissed a preliminary objection, allowing the substantive dispute to proceed to hearing.
A case challenging the alleged last-minute removal of a former St Patrick’s Iten High School student from Kenya’s team to the 2025 People with Disabilities Chess Olympiad will proceed to a full hearing after the Sports Disputes Tribunal dismissed a preliminary objection seeking to halt the proceedings.
Alex Kipkoech Rotich and his father, Thomas Rotich, moved to the Tribunal against Chess Kenya Federation, its president and another defendant following events surrounding Alex’s selection to represent Kenya at the international competition in Astana, Kazakhstan.
The case was filed on April 9, 2026, through Songok & Company Advocates.
According to the Tribunal ruling, Alex is a person with disability, a former student of St Patrick’s Iten High School and a registered member of Chess Kenya. His father, Thomas, is also an alumnus of the school.
The dispute traces back to Alex’s performance in the Kenya National People with Disability Chess Championship, which he won on August 16, 2025.
The Tribunal records that he held a FIDE rating of 1760 and was subsequently selected to represent Kenya at the 2025 People with Disabilities Chess Olympiad in Astana.
However, according to the plaintiffs, the opportunity disappeared just hours before he was expected to travel.
The ruling states that about five hours before departure, Alex and his father were informed by the first and second defendants that he had been dropped from the team on the basis of a purported withdrawal letter and replaced by another player.
Alex and his father deny authorising any such withdrawal letter.
They contend that the omission arose from correspondence involving the third defendant, without authority, and that Alex was unfairly removed from the national team.
The plaintiffs further allege that the decision was discriminatory and malicious and caused them substantial financial and other losses.
Among the losses cited is approximately Sh3 million they say had been invested in Alex’s training, as well as the alleged loss of an international scholarship opportunity.
The claims have not yet been determined by the Tribunal and remain allegations that the defendants will have an opportunity to answer during the substantive proceedings.
Chess Kenya challenges case
Instead of proceeding immediately to the merits of the dispute, the defendants raised a preliminary objection dated April 30, 2026.
The objection challenged the competence of the proceedings on several grounds, including the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the constitution of the parties before it.
The matter was heard through written submissions before a panel comprising Hon Eddie Omondi, Hon Nicodemus Kimanthi and Deputy Chairperson Hon Allan Mola Owiny.2025 People with Disabilities Chess Olympiad
Songok & Company Advocates represented the plaintiffs, while Lwanga & Company Advocates appeared for the defendants.
After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that most of the grounds advanced in the preliminary objection could not prevent the substantive dispute from proceeding.
“Drawing the threads together, none of the grounds advanced achieves the object for which the Objection was brought,” the Tribunal said.
It found that several grounds failed on their merits, while others additionally failed because they did not meet the requirements of preliminary objections.
The Tribunal consequently dismissed the preliminary objection.
One of the significant findings concerned whether the Sports Disputes Tribunal had the legal authority to hear the case.
The Tribunal ruled that it was properly seized of jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Section 58 of the Sports Act, No. 25 of 2013.
“The Tribunal is properly seized of jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to section 58 of the Sports Act, No. 25 of 2013, and the claim shall proceed to hearing on its merits,” it ordered.
The finding means the remaining defendants will have to respond to the substantive allegations surrounding Alex’s removal from the national team.
However, the Tribunal stressed that dismissing the preliminary objection should not be interpreted as a finding that Alex’s allegations against Chess Kenya have already been proved.
Chess Kenya president struck out
Although the defendants failed to have the entire case dismissed, the Tribunal found merit in the question of whether the President of Chess Kenya Federation had properly been named as a separate defendant.
It held that Chess Kenya Federation is the registered national sports organisation responsible for administering chess in Kenya and is answerable for decisions and actions taken through its officials and organs.
The Tribunal found that its president acts as an officer and agent of the federation rather than as a separate legal actor merely because he occupies the office.
It noted that no provision of the Sports Act or other instrument presented before it conferred separate legal personality upon the office of President of Chess Kenya Federation.
“The 2nd Defendant as pleaded is an office and nothing more. The ground is well founded,” the Tribunal said.
It therefore struck the second defendant out of the proceedings.
The case will, however, continue against the first and third defendants.
The Tribunal was particularly careful to distinguish its decision on the preliminary objection from a judgment on the substance of Alex’s complaint.
It noted that Chess Kenya Federation had not yet filed its defence or answered the substantive allegations.
“Nothing in this Ruling should be understood as an expression of any view upon the merits,” the Tribunal stated.
Among the questions likely to be examined when the case proceeds are whether a withdrawal letter existed, whether Alex actually authorised his withdrawal from the national team, the circumstances under which another player replaced him and whether the decision caused the losses alleged by the plaintiffs.
The evidence surrounding the circumstances of his omission from the team will therefore be tested during the full hearing.
Defendants given 14 days to respond
In its final orders, the Tribunal dismissed the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated April 30, 2026 and confirmed that it has jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
It ordered that the second defendant be struck out and directed that proceedings continue against the first and third defendants.
The remaining defendants were further directed to file and serve their responses to the plaintiffs, together with all relevant pleadings, within 14 days of the ruling.
The question of costs will be determined following the conclusion of the proceedings.
READ ALSO: Student sentenced to life imprisonment for defiling nine-year-old pupil in Lamu
The decision therefore leaves unresolved the central dispute over Alex’s removal from the Kenyan team, with the Tribunal expected to determine the competing accounts after hearing the substantive case.
By Staff Reporter
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
>>> Click here to read more informed opinions on the country’s education landscape
