NAIROBI, Kenya-The Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) has mounted a strong legal pushback against a complaint filed by Edwin Watenya Sifuna before the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal, arguing that the matter is premature and outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
In the case, Sifuna sued ODM and the Registrar of Political Parties as the 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively, seeking intervention in what is understood to be a dispute touching on internal party governance and decisions of the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC).
But in a Notice of Preliminary Objection filed through Makori & Karimi Advocates, ODM contends that the Tribunal is expressly barred from hearing the dispute under Section 40(2) of the Political Parties Act.
ODM: Internal Mechanisms Must Come First
The party argues that disputes outlined under Section 40(1)(a)-(e) of the Act cannot be entertained by the Tribunal unless they have first been subjected to and determined through the party’s Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (IDRM).
According to ODM, the issues raised by Sifuna squarely fall within internal party governance and therefore require mandatory exhaustion of internal structures before external adjudication.
“The complaint has neither pleaded nor demonstrated that he invoked, pursued or exhausted the party’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms,” court papers read.
ODM further argues that Sifuna has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing the party’s internal systems.
Doctrine of Exhaustion
In strengthening its objection, ODM cites the Court of Appeal decision in Geoffrey Muthinja & Another v Samuel Muguna Henry & 1756 Others, which affirmed the doctrine of exhaustion — holding that where a dispute resolution mechanism exists, it must be fully exhausted before recourse is made to the courts or tribunals.
The party maintains that allowing the matter to proceed would undermine both its internal governance framework and the intent of the Political Parties Act.
ODM has now asked the Tribunal to dismiss the complaint with costs, terming it premature, incompetent, and fatally defective for want of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal is expected to determine whether it has the mandate to hear the matter before delving into its substantive merits.
