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

Onderi v Orange Democratic Movement Party; Mbadi & 4 others (Interested Parties) (Complaint E001 (KSM) of 2024) [2025] KEPPDT 5 (KLR) (13 May 2025) (Judgment)

[2025] KEPPDT 5 (KLR) Public Procurement Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Public Procurement Tribunal
Case number
5
Citation
[2025] KEPPDT 5 (KLR)
Decided
13 May 2025
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePolitical Parties DisputesPostureAppeal from the decision of the Political Parties Disputes TribunalCoramAs Majanja, Mativo, Nyarangi, Onguto
Holding

The Tribunal has jurisdiction over the complaint and the process leading to the de-whipping of the Complainant was conducted in accordance with the law.

Facts

The Complainant, a Member of the Kisii County Assembly, was de-whipped from the Budget & Appropriations Committee and the Health Services Committee of the Kisii County Assembly by the Respondent and the 1st Interested Party on November 1, 2023.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the complaint
  2. Whether the process leading to the de-whipping of the Complainant was conducted in accordance with the law

Reasoning

The Tribunal's jurisdiction is derived from Article 169 (1) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, as read together with Section 40 of the Political Parties Act, 2011. The de-whipping process was conducted in accordance with the law.

Outcome

The complaint is not premature and the 4th and 5th Interested Parties are not necessary parties.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Article 169 (1) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
  • Section 40 of the Political Parties Act, 2011
Cases cited (1)
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lilian S” vs. Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited [1989] KLR 1
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 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case