ODM says Sifuna case premature for failure to exhaust internal dispute process

In the complaint, Sifuna has sued ODM and the Registrar of Political Parties as the first and second respondents, seeking the tribunal’s intervention in a matter understood to touch on internal party governance and decisions of the party’s National Executive Committee.

However, ODM — through Makori & Karimi Advocates — argues that the tribunal is barred from entertaining the dispute under Section 40(2) of the Political Parties Act.

The party says disputes under Section 40(1)(a)-(e) cannot be heard by the PPDT unless they have first been subjected to and determined through a party’s Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms (IDRM).

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

The party argues that Sifuna has neither pleaded nor demonstrated that he invoked or exhausted ODM’s internal mechanisms, nor shown exceptional circumstances that would justify bypassing them.

“The complaint has neither pleaded nor demonstrated that he invoked, pursued or exhausted the party’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms,” ODM says in court papers.

The party also cited the Court of Appeal decision 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 court.

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

The party wants the tribunal to dismiss the complaint with costs