[2017] KEHC 5203 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain disputes arising from political party nominations where the parties have not exhausted the dispute resolution mechanisms provided under the Political Parties Act and the party's internal organs. The Political Parties Dispute Tribunal has primary jurisdiction over such...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 5203 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Stephen Masamo; Petitioner: Mutie Mota; Petitioner: Esther Mucha; Petitioner: Stephen Ndelejai Elbariki; Respondent: Judith Pareno (Chairlady of Election ODM Party); Respondent: County Returning Officer ODM Taita Taveta; Respondent: ODM Party; Interested Party: John Mtuta Mrutu; Interested Party: Christopher Mwambingu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Voi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 6 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Application declined for want of jurisdiction; matter transferred to Political Parties Dispute Tribunal.
- Judges
- CM Kamau
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of High Court, Political Party Primaries, Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies, Alternative Dispute Resolution
- 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
Stephen Masamo
Petitioner
Mutie Mota
Petitioner
Esther Mucha
Petitioner
Stephen Ndelejai Elbariki
Petitioner
Judith Pareno (Chairlady of Election ODM Party)
Respondent
County Returning Officer ODM Taita Taveta
Respondent
ODM Party
Respondent
John Mtuta Mrutu
Interested Party
Christopher Mwambingu
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection/jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes arising from political party nominations before exhaustion of remedies under the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal.
- 2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek redress in the High Court for alleged violations of constitutional rights relating to party nominations.
- 3 Whether the application should be transferred to the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal for determination.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain disputes arising from political party nominations where the parties have not exhausted the dispute resolution mechanisms provided under the Political Parties Act and the party's internal organs. The Political Parties Dispute Tribunal has primary jurisdiction over such disputes, and only after its determination can an appeal be made to the High Court. The court found that entertaining the matter at this stage would be premature and would infringe on the jurisdiction of other legal entities established by law to resolve such disputes. Consequently, the application was declined, and the matter was directed to the appropriate forum for...
Court Disposition
Application declined for want of jurisdiction; matter transferred to Political Parties Dispute Tribunal.
Orders
- Prayer Nos (1) and (2) of the application are declined.
- The Notice of Motion application dated 20th April 2017 is transferred to the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal for hearing and determination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT VOI
PETITION NO 6 OF 2017
STEPHEN MASAMO
MUTIE MOTA
ESTHER MUCHA
STEPHEN NDELEJAI ELBARIKI………………...........PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. JUDITH PARENO (CHAIRLADY OF ELECTION ODM PARTY)
2. COUNTY RETURNINGOFFICER ODM TAITA TAVETA
3. ODM PARTY……………………………….……....RESPONDENTS
AND
JOHN MTUTA MRUTU
CHRISTOPHER MWAMBINGU………..............INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. This court has carefully listened to counsel for the Petitioners and the Interested Parties but in the absence of the Respondents and note that the Petitioners filed their present application dated 20th April 2017 on 21st April 2017 and Petition pursuant to the provisions of Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Indeed Article 22(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 provides that every person has a right to institute court proceedings claiming that a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied, violated or infringed or is threatened.
2. In Article 38 (3) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya, every adult person has the right, without unreasonable restrictions to vote by secret ballot in any election or referendum. The elections in a nomination exercise, in my mind of this court fall within this category.
3. Article 23(1) of the Constitution of Kenya stipulates that the High Court has jurisdiction in accordance with Article 165 (3) (b) of the Constitution to hear and determine applications for redress of a denial, violation or infringement of, or threat of, a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights.
4. Having said so, Article 82(1)(b) of the Constitution stipulates that Parliament shall enact legislation to provide for the nomination of candidates. This legislation includes the Elections Act and the Political Parties Act. Article 88 of the Constitution also provides that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) has jurisdiction to monitor the compliance of legislation required by Article 82 (1) (b) relating to nomination of candidates by parties.
5. It is therefore clear from the Political Parties Act, Section 40(1)(fa) that the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes arising out of party primaries. An appeal will then lie to this court on part of law and fact from the said Tribunal as stated in Section 41(2) of the Political Parties Act.
6. The Petitioners may be seeking orders to safeguard their rights as voters. However, the mechanism is properly provided. Any decision by this court will be premature as there is no evidence that the dispute has been heard and determined by the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal.
7. In addition, since the mechanisms for resolution of the dispute are provided in the 3rd Respondent’s National Board and the dispute has already been referred to the National Board of the 3rd Respondent, this court’s decision in respect of the dispute herein will infringe on the jurisdiction of other legal entities that have jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes. Indeed Articles 22, 23 or 165 (3) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya are not superior to Article 88 (4) (k) of the Constitution of Kenya which refers to legislation relating to nominations of candidates.
8. It is this court’s view that it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute at present and must therefore down its tools. In the premises foregoing, I hereby decline to grant Prayer Nos (1) and (2) of the present application as was sought by the Petitioners and order that they direct their dispute to the appropriate legal entity for determination.
9. This court is aware that it has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any persons, body or authority exercising a judicial or quazi – judicial function but not over a superior court as provided in Article 165 (6) of the Constitution.
10. Bearing in mind the principle that justice shall not be denied as there are timelines in the nomination exercise, a principle that is set down in Article 159(2) (b) of the Constitution and the fact that courts shall promote alternative forms of dispute resolution in accordance with Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution, I hereby direct that the Notice of Motion application dated 20th April 2017 and filed on 21st April 2017 be transferred to the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal forthwith for its hearing and determination of the same.
11. The Petitioners and the Interested Parties are at liberty to proceed with the Petition dated 20th April 2017 and filed on 21st April 2017 in this court should they deem it fit to do so.
12. Orders accordingly.
DATED and DELIVERED at VOI this 24thday of APRIL 2017
J. KAMAU
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Mwinzi – for Petitioners & Interested Parties
Josephat Mavu – Court Clerk