Background of the Case
On 15 May 2025, nominated Senator Gloria Orwoba filed a petition at the High Court in Nairobi challenging summons by the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) to attend a disciplinary hearing scheduled for 16 May 2025. She argued that UDA had no proper disciplinary rules and that the process threatened her constitutional rights to a fair trial and fair administrative action.
On the same day, Justice Lawrence Mugambi issued a conservatory order stopping the disciplinary proceedings linked to a complaint contained in UDA’s letter dated 7 May 2025, referenced UDA/7/DISP/25. Ms. Orwoba later claimed that UDA ignored this order, proceeded with the hearing in secret and expelled her from the party and the Senate.
UDA’s Response and Preliminary Objection
UDA opposed the petition and filed a preliminary objection on 20 May 2025. The party argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction because Section 40 of the Political Parties Act requires disputes between members and political parties to be heard first by the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT). UDA maintained that the petition breached the doctrine of exhaustion and amounted to abuse of court process.
UDA also filed an application to strike out the petition, claiming Ms. Orwoba had filed multiple cases on the same dispute in different forums, including Complaint No. E006 of 2025 before the PPDT.
Court’s Findings on Contempt of Court
In her application dated 20 May 2025, Ms. Orwoba sought to have UDA and several party officials cited for contempt, arguing that they violated the 15 May 2025 court order. However, Justice Mugambi found that the order applied only to Complaint No. 1, as outlined in the 7 May 2025 letter. The UDA Disciplinary Committee had suspended that specific complaint but proceeded with Complaint No. 2, filed by Festus Omwamba and Henry Muriithi, which was not covered by the order.
The judge ruled that contempt was not proven because UDA complied with the exact terms of the court order.
Doctrine of Exhaustion and Jurisdiction
Justice Mugambi noted that the petition was based on UDA’s handling of disciplinary action against Ms. Orwoba. Such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the PPDT in the first instance, with the High Court acting as an appellate body. Since Ms. Orwoba had already taken the same matter to the PPDT, pursuing it in the High Court at the same time amounted to forum shopping and an abuse of process.
The court held that she should have awaited the Tribunal’s decision before approaching the High Court.
Final Decision
On 13 August 2025, sitting at the Milimani High Court in Nairobi, Justice Lawrence Mugambi struck out the petition with costs to UDA. The ruling emphasized the need to respect the doctrine of exhaustion and to avoid parallel proceedings in different forums over the same dispute. Read the whole case file HERE
Leave a Reply