[2022] KEPPDT 968 (KLR)

[2022] KEPPDT 968 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that there was no new or important information from the related complaint (E045/22) that was unavailable at the time of the original judgment. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or any basis for review. The Tribunal emphasized that parties are bound by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEPPDT 968 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Ouma Ndonji; Respondent: Shadrack Machanje Namunyu; Respondent: Orange Democratic Movement; Interested Party: Stephen Otieno aka Vosti
Court
Political Parties Disputes Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Complaint E044 (NRB) of 2022
Procedural Posture
Complaint / Ruling on Application for Review
Outcome
application for review dismissed with costs
Judges
ML Odongo, T K Tororey, L Wambui
Legal Topics
Party Nominations, Internal Party Dispute Resolution, Review of Tribunal Decisions
Source Language
en
Election Petitions Administrative Law Party Nominations Internal Party Dispute Resolution Review of Tribunal Decisions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Ouma Ndonji

Applicant

Shadrack Machanje Namunyu

Respondent

Orange Democratic Movement

Respondent

Stephen Otieno aka Vosti

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Complaint / Ruling on Application for Review

  1. 1 Whether the ODM party nomination process for Umoja II Ward was conducted in accordance with party rules and the law.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's earlier judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant exhausted internal party dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that there was no new or important information from the related complaint (E045/22) that was unavailable at the time of the original judgment. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or any basis for review. The Tribunal emphasized that parties are bound by their pleadings and must exhaust internal party dispute resolution mechanisms before seeking redress before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application for review dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for review dated May 17, 2022 filed by the 1st respondent is dismissed with costs.