[2012] KEHC 5969 (KLR)
The court held that while internal dispute resolution mechanisms within political parties are recognized and encouraged by the Constitution, their inefficiency or failure to provide relief justifies recourse to the Political Parties Tribunal as established under the Political Parties Act. The court interpreted...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 5969 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: George Okode; Applicant: David Otieno; Applicant: Peter Omendo; Applicant: Job Odhiambo Oduor; Applicant: Manase Obwao; Applicant: Albert Owino Ojing; Respondent: Orange Democratic Movement Party; Respondent: Registrar of Political Parties
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 294 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling
- Outcome
- Conditional referral to internal party mechanisms with liberty to approach the Political Parties Tribunal if unresolved.
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Political Party Disputes, Internal Dispute Resolution, Jurisdiction of Tribunals
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
George Okode
Applicant
David Otieno
Applicant
Peter Omendo
Applicant
Job Odhiambo Oduor
Applicant
Manase Obwao
Applicant
Albert Owino Ojing
Applicant
Orange Democratic Movement Party
Respondent
Registrar of Political Parties
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should entertain disputes arising from political party activities or refer them to the Political Parties Tribunal.
- 2 Whether the internal dispute resolution mechanisms of the Orange Democratic Movement Party are effective and must be exhausted before recourse to the Tribunal.
- 3 Whether referring the dispute to the Tribunal is consistent with the petitioners' constitutional rights.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while internal dispute resolution mechanisms within political parties are recognized and encouraged by the Constitution, their inefficiency or failure to provide relief justifies recourse to the Political Parties Tribunal as established under the Political Parties Act. The court interpreted section 40(2) of the Act to permit an aggrieved party member to approach the Tribunal where the party has neglected or refused to activate its internal mechanisms. This approach is consistent with Article 38 of the Constitution, which guarantees political rights, and Article 159, which vests judicial power in courts and tribunals. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article...
Court Disposition
Conditional referral to internal party mechanisms with liberty to approach the Political Parties Tribunal if unresolved.
Orders
- The 1st respondent, the Orange Democratic Movement Party, shall within seven (7) days of service of this order put in motion mechanism to resolve internally the grievances raised by the petitioners concerning the elections.
- Failing activation of such mechanisms, the petitioners shall be at liberty to lodge their dispute before the Political Parties Tribunal for determination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. 294 OF 2011
BETWEEN
GEORGE OKODE .......................................................1st PETITIONER
DAVID OTIENO..........................................................2ND PETITIONER
PTER OMENDO.........................................................3RD PETITIONER
JOB ODHIAMBO ODUOR...........................................4TH PETITIONER
MANASE OBWAO.....................................................5TH PETITIONER
ALBERT OWINO OJING............................................6TH PETITIONER
AND
ORANGE DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT PARTY .......1ST RESPONDENT
REGISTRAR OF POLITICAL PARTIES...................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. I have considered this matter and it deals with political party activities. There is now a Political Parties Tribunal established under the Political Parties Act that is intended to resolve such issues. This is in line with Article 159 of the Constitution which provides that judicial power vests in Courts and Tribunals. It is therefore not inconsistent with Article 22 of the Constitution to refer such a matter to a body constituted for that purpose.
2. Moreover, Article 23 of the Constitution entitles this court to frame remedy that will give effect to the rights of the petitioners.
3. I am aware that the Orange Democratic Movement has a Constitution that provides for dispute resolution. Such mechanisms are recognised and are indeed encouraged by the Constitution. However, in this matter, they seem to lack efficiency in the sense that the petitioner’s lack relief there under.
4. In my view therefore, I would interpret section 40(2) of the Political Parties Act to permit an aggrieved member of the party to bring their grievances before the Tribunal where such party has neglected or refused to activate the political party mechanism. Such a reading of the statute is consistent with giving efficiency to the political rights enshrined under Article 38 of the Constitution.
5. In exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 23 of the Constitution, I hereby direct as follows;
(i) The 1st respondent, the Orange Democratic Movement Party shall within seven (7) days of service of this order put in motion mechanism to resolve internally the grievances raised by the petitioners concerning the elections.
(ii) Failing which the activation of such mechanisms the petitioners shall be at liberty to lodge their dispute before the Political parties Tribunal for determination.
(iii) Parties hereto are at liberty to apply for further orders.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 27th day of January 2012.
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE