[2025] KEPPDT 2 (KLR)

Orwoba v United Democratic Alliance Party & 3 others; Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & another (Interested Parties) (Complaint E006 (NRB) of 2025) [2025] KEPPDT 2 (KLR) (26 May 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEPPDT 2 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal

Complaint E006 (NRB) of 2025

D. Nungo, Chair, AA Abdikadir & T. Chepkwony, Members

May 26, 2025

Between

Gloria Magoma Orwoba

Complainant

and

United Democratic Alliance Party

1st Respondent

Festus Omwamba

2nd Respondent

Henry Muriithi

3rd Respondent

Office Of The Registrar Of Political Parties

4th Respondent

and

Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission

Interested Party

The National Senate

Interested Party

Ruling

1. This matter was first placed before the Tribunal Chairperson on 22nd May 2025 for issuance of directions on the Complainant’s Notice of Motion Application dated 21st May 2025 that was filed by the firm of Mabeya & Mabeya Advocates under certificate of urgency (hereinafter referred to as the application).

2. After a preliminary consideration of the application, and more so, the disclosure made of pending proceedings before the High Court related to this matter, the Tribunal Chairperson certified the application as urgent but elected to give directions for service, where-after any prayers for interim order would be considered, inter partes. This would not only allow the Tribunal an opportunity to seek clarification on the pending High Court matter, but would also allow all parties an opportunity to submit on the application for interim orders.

3. In consonance with the Tribunal’s directions, the Complainant’s Counsel served the pleadings upon the Respondents and Interested Parties, and the parties appeared before the Tribunal on Friday 23rd May 2025, as directed, when submissions were made on the question of grant of interim orders.

4. Counsel for the Complainant/Applicant urged the Tribunal to grant interim orders in terms of prayers number 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the application in order to preserve the status of the matter. They relied on their written submissions on record, and highlighted that the UDA Disciplinary Committee conducted disciplinary proceedings on 16th May 2025, notwithstanding High Court orders stopping the same. The Tribunal was also taken through what transpired on 16th May 2025, and the NEC decision of 19th May 2025, and the Gazette Notice declaring the position of Senatevacant.

5. It’s the Applicant’s submission that they have met the principles for grant of the conservatory orders sought, and that failure to grant the same would render the instant Complainant nugatory. As regards the pending High Court case, they submitted that UDA had submitted before the High Court that they went on with the disciplinary proceedings on 16th May 2025, based on a Complaint that was not before the High Court, and to that extent, those are separate proceedings from what is before the High Court. It is also their submission that the prayers sought before the High Court are different from those sought before this Tribunal. The Tribunal was referred to the Petition before the High Court found at page 12 of Complainant’s bundle.

6. In response, it was submitted, on behalf of the 1st Respondent, that issues raised in the instant application are similar to what is pending before the High Court, and that the High Court (Mugambi J) had already issued an Order on 21st May 2025 suspending the implementation of the UDA decision to expel the Complainant herein. The 4th Respondent associated itself with the 1st Respondent’s submissions. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents and the Interested Parties did not appear despite service.

7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties hereto, and the main question for our consideration, at this preliminary stage, is whether we should exercise our discretion to grant any interim orders. This Tribunal appreciates the wellestablished principles for grant of conservatory orders, as judicially underscored in numerous cases, including Supreme Court decision in Gatirau Peter Munya & Dickson Mwende Kthinji that was relied on by the parties. In that case, the Supreme Court appreciated that conservatory orders facilitate ordered functioning within the public agencies as well as upholding the adjudicatory authority of the Court in the public interest.

8. We have been invited to grant interim orders in relation to prayers 2, 3, 4 and 5. There is, however, the opposing submission that this matter is similar to what is pending before the High Court, and there are already orders by the High Court conserving the status.

9. We have had occasion to peruse the Petition and motions filed in High Court Constitutional Petition No. E284 of 2025, Gloria Orwoba vs United Democratic Alliance Party & Registrar of Political Parties, and there is no gainsaying that the same contest the disciplinary proceedings that the Complainant herein was subjected to by the 1st Respondent.

10. Of great significance to us at this moment, is what transpired in the High Court on 21st May 2025. We have seen orders of Mugambi J, issued on 21st May 2025 in the said High Court Constitutional Petition No. E284 of 2025, Gloria Orwoba vs United Democratic Alliance Party & Registrar of Political Parties, which read, inter alia “that pending hearing and determination of this application, a conservatory order is hereby issued suspending the implementation of the decision of UDA Party Discplinary Committee dated 16/5/25 expelling the Petitioner herein as a member of UDA party and/or a nominated senator.” The High Court order in addition directed that the matter would be mentioned before the High Court on 3rd June 2025.

11. The two key points we note from the above High Court order, are, firstly, that there was filed an application dated 21st May 2025 before the High Court which we note sought orders relating to the decision of the UDA Party to expel the Complainant or revoke her nomination. Similar orders have been sought herein. Secondly, and most importantly, the above interim orders already stay the implementation of decision of the party to expel the Complainant as member of UDA party and/or a nominated senator. In essence, the implementation of the 1st Respondent’s decision to expel applicant as a party member or senator, which implementation covers the interim orders sought herein, has already been stayed by the High Court. What therefore would be the impact of our granting interim orders at this stage?

12. Considering that the subject matter of this dispute is before the High Court, and further considering the above High Court orders of 21st May 2025, and the parties’ submissions on judicial deference, this Tribunal maintains the view that it must refrain from issuing any orders in respect of a matter that is pending before the High Court, or which may affect a matter pending before the High Court.

13. The High Court has already granted interim orders and we cannot now purport to grant any interim orders. We cannot also issue orders in vain. Accordingly, we shall not exercise our discretion to grant any interim orders at the moment for the reasons afore-stated.

DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI (VIRTUALLY) THIS 26TH MAY 2025. HON. DESMA NUNGO, HSC -(CHAIRPERSON)HON. ABDIRAHMAN ABDIKADIR -(MEMBER)HON. THERESA CHEPKWONY -(MEMBER)