The Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) has asked the political parties dispute tribunal to dismiss a complaint filed by Edwin Sifuna arguing that the matter is premature and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear it.

In the complaint, Sifuna sued ODM and the Registrar of Political Parties as the 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively, seeking the Tribunal’s intervention in what is understood to be a dispute touching on internal party governance and decisions of the party’s National Executive Committee.

However, in a Notice of Preliminary Objection  ODM, through Makori & Karimi Advocates, contends that the Tribunal is expressly barred from entertaining the dispute under Section 40(2) of the Political Parties Act.

According to ODM, the law is clear that disputes falling under Section 40(1)(a)-(e) of the Act cannot be heard by the Tribunal unless they have first been subjected to and determined through the party’s Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (IDRM). 

The party argues that the issues raised by Sifuna concern internal governance and are therefore subject to mandatory prior exhaustion of its internal structures.

ODM maintains that Sifuna has neither pleaded nor demonstrated that he invoked or exhausted the party’s internal mechanisms. Further, the party argues that the Complainant has not shown any exceptional circumstances that would warrant bypassing those mechanisms.

“The complaint has nether pleaded no or demonstrated that he invoked , persuaded or exhausted the party’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms,”reads court papers. 

ODM also cites the Court of Appeal ruling in Geoffrey Muthinja & Another v Samuel Muguna Henry & 1756 Others, which underscored the doctrine of exhaustion, holding that where a dispute resolution mechanism exists, it must be exhausted before recourse is made to the courts.

The party argues that allowing the complaint to proceed without exhaustion of internal remedies would effectively short-circuit the party’s established dispute resolution processes and undermine the intent of the Political Parties Act.

In its objection, ODM terms the complaint premature, incompetent, and fatally defective for want of jurisdiction and urges the Tribunal to dismiss it with costs.