Audio By Vocalize
Embattled ODM Secretary-General Edwin Sifuna has suffered a major blow after the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal dismissed his case challenging his ouster from the party’s top administrative position.
Acting Chairperson Gad Gathu, delivering the judgment Thursday afternoon, ruled that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter after finding that Sifuna had not attempted to subject the dispute to the party’s Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (IDRM) before rushing to the tribunal.
“The Tribunal therefore finds that it does not have powers to exempt a dispute from the requirement to attempt IDRM and thus cannot assume jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute under the provisions of Section 40, Subsection 2 of the Political Parties Act,” Gathu declared.
Sifuna, through his lawyer Isaac Okero, had urged the tribunal to overlook the IDRM requirement, citing six grounds, among them that the NEC had met and resolved to remove him without his knowledge, publicly announced the decision at a press conference, and that the tribunal was the only body with the power to grant injunctive relief.
The tribunal, however, found these arguments legally insufficient to bypass the clear statutory requirement.
“Even where a party alleges that the IDRM organ in a political party is for example non-existent or fraught with conflict of interest, it would be prudent for a party in dispute with a political party to notify the political party of their unavailability or with a conflict of interest,” the bench ruled.
The tribunal further found that ODM’s own constitution, under Article 88, provided a clear and functional avenue for resolving the dispute internally, including through arbitration, fatally undermining Sifuna’s argument that internal mechanisms were unavailable or ineffective.
Despite the dismissal, the tribunal threw Sifuna a partial lifeline by invoking its inherent jurisdiction to prevent ODM from immediately formalising his removal with the Registrar of Political Parties.
“This tribunal retains inherent jurisdiction to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process,” the bench stated.
“As a show of good faith, the removal of the complainant as Secretary General of the First Respondent should not be filed with the Second Respondent pending the attempt at IDRM and without prejudice to the First Respondent’s right to institute or conduct disciplinary proceedings in strict compliance with its constitution and all applicable laws.”
The bench also noted ODM’s own concession contained in the replying affidavit of ODM official that the February 11 Mombasa NEC resolution was not final and was intended to trigger IDRM, not constitute a conclusive removal.
Support Independent Journalism
Stand With Bold Journalism.
Stand With The Standard.
Continue
→
Pay via
Secure Payment
Kenya’s most trusted newsroom since 1902
Follow The Standard
channel on WhatsApp
Embattled ODM Secretary-General Edwin Sifuna has suffered a major blow after the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal dismissed his case challenging his ouster from the party’s top administrative position.
Acting Chairperson Gad Gathu, delivering the judgment Thursday afternoon, ruled that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter after finding that Sifuna had not attempted to subject the dispute to the party’s Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (IDRM) before rushing to the tribunal.
“The Tribunal therefore finds that it does not have powers to exempt a dispute from the requirement to attempt IDRM and thus cannot assume jurisdiction to hear and determine this dispute under the provisions of Section 40, Subsection 2 of the Political Parties Act,” Gathu declared.
Sifuna, through his lawyer Isaac Okero, had
urged the tribunal to overlook the IDRM requirement, citing six grounds, among them that the NEC had met and resolved to remove him without his knowledge, publicly announced the decision at a press conference, and that the tribunal was the only body with the power to grant injunctive relief.
The tribunal, however, found these arguments legally insufficient to bypass the clear statutory requirement.
“Even where a party alleges that the IDRM organ in a political party is for example non-existent or fraught with conflict of interest, it would be prudent for a party in dispute with a political party to notify the political party of their unavailability or with a conflict of interest,” the bench ruled.
The tribunal further found that ODM’s own constitution, under Article 88, provided a clear and functional avenue for resolving the dispute internally, including through arbitration, fatally undermining Sifuna’s argument that internal mechanisms were unavailable or ineffective.
Despite the dismissal, the tribunal threw Sifuna a partial lifeline by invoking its inherent jurisdiction to prevent ODM from immediately formalising his removal with the Registrar of Political Parties.
“This tribunal retains inherent jurisdiction to meet the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process,” the bench stated.
“As a show of good faith, the removal of the complainant as Secretary General of the First Respondent should not be filed with the Second Respondent pending the attempt at IDRM and without prejudice to the First Respondent’s right to institute or conduct disciplinary proceedings in strict compliance with its constitution and all applicable laws.”
The bench also noted ODM’s own concession contained in the replying affidavit of ODM official that the February 11 Mombasa NEC resolution was not final and was intended to trigger IDRM, not constitute a conclusive removal.
Follow The Standard
channel on WhatsApp
By Nancy Gitonga