SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Orwoba v UDA Electoral Nomination and Dispute Resolution Committee Through United Democratic Alliance Party & 3 others; Electoral and Boundaries Commission & another (Interested Parties) (Tribunal Case (NRB A) E006 of 2025) [2025] KEPPDT 17 (KLR) (23 June 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KEPPDT 17 (KLR) Public Procurement Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Public Procurement Tribunal
Case number
17
Citation
[2025] KEPPDT 17 (KLR)
Decided
23 June 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePolitical Parties DisputesPostureApplication to strike out Amended ComplaintCoramHON DESMA NUNGO, HON. ABDIRAHMAN ABDIKADIR, HON. THERESA CHEPKWONY
Holding

The Amended Complaint is sustained and the 1st Respondent's application to strike it out is dismissed.

Facts

The Complainant filed an Amended Complaint against the 1st Respondent, the UDA Electoral Nomination and Dispute Resolution Committee, alleging disciplinary proceedings and subsequent actions. The 1st Respondent objected to the Amended Complaint, claiming it was frivolous and an abuse of process.

Issues

  1. Whether the Amended Complaint should be struck out
  2. Whether the 1st Respondent's rights to a fair trial are violated by the Amended Complaint

Reasoning

The Tribunal found that the Complainant had the right to amend her pleadings before the close of pleadings, and that the amendments were not frivolous or an abuse of process. The Tribunal also noted that the Respondents and Interested Parties had a corresponding right to respond and amend their responses.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Amended Complaint remains on record

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
  • Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (Procedure) Regulations, 2017
Cases cited (2)
  • Basil Criticos v AIC Makutano & 39 others [2022] KEELC 1280 (KLR)
  • Central Kenya Ltd v Trust Bank Ltd & 5 others (2000) eKLR
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case