Gogo v Nyamuthe & 4 others (Civil Appeal 135 of 2017) [2017] KECA 454 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that most political party primary disputes must first go through the party's internal dispute process before going to the PPDT.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether Section 40(1)(fa) of the Political Parties Act confers original and immediate jurisdiction on the PPDT over party primary disputes
No. Section 40(1)(fa) did not create an entirely new category of disputes exempt from internal party mechanisms; disputes arising out of primaries that fall under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (e) must first go through the internal dispute resolution mechanism.
The amendment was introduced to address concurrent jurisdiction, not to bypass internal mechanisms. Primaries disputes between members, between members and party, between parties, or coalition partners were already covered by paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (e), all of which are subject to Section 40(2). Only primaries disputes outside those categories may go directly to the PPDT. Following Karume, a prescribed procedure must be strictly followed.
The correct interpretive approach to Section 40 of the Political Parties Act
A purposive approach is appropriate, having regard to the memorandum of objects and reasons showing the amendment sought to address concurrent jurisdiction rather than displace internal mechanisms.
Adopting Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji and Pepper v Hart, the court read the amendment in light of its stated object. The object of introducing Section 40(1)(fa) was to address the challenge of concurrent jurisdiction with other bodies handling electoral disputes, not to confer direct jurisdiction on the PPDT over all primary disputes.
Legal principles established
#- Disputes arising out of party primaries that fall within paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (e) of Section 40(1) of the Political Parties Act must first be heard by the party's internal dispute resolution mechanism before the PPDT takes cognizance of them
- Where a clear procedure for redress of a particular grievance is prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure must be strictly followed
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed
- 2.Judgment and orders of the High Court given on 10th May 2017 set aside
- 3.Decision of the PPDT given on 6th May 2017 declaring the 1st respondent's claim premature is upheld
- 4.No orders as to costs
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 41(2) of the Political Parties Act - appeals to the Court of Appeal restricted to points of law
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gogo v Nyamuthe & 4 others (Civil Appeal 135 of 2017) [2017] KECA 454 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Civil Appeal (Court of Appeal, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2017/454/eng@2017-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.