Blow to Gloria Orwoba as High Court throws out petition challenging UDA disciplinary process
The court found that Orwoba ought to have first pursued her grievances before the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) as required under Section 39 of the Political Parties Act.
Former nominated Senator Gloria Orwoba has suffered a blow after the High Court struck out her petition challenging the United Democratic Alliance Party's disciplinary proceedings against her.
The court further ordered her to pay costs to UDA in the suit.
More To Read
- Court awards Sh10.5 million to Senate Clerk Nyegenye in defamation case against Gloria Orwoba
- DCP defends Orwoba after UDA expulsion, slams Speaker Kingi for defying court order
- Nominated Senator Gloria Orwoba shown the door as Senate declares seat vacant
- Senator Gloria Orwoba loses court bid to stop expulsion from UDA
- Nominated Senator Gloria Orwoba expelled from UDA over alleged disloyalty
- High Court suspends UDA disciplinary hearing against Nominated Senator Orwoba
The ruling delivered on Wednesday by Justice Lawrence Mugambi found that the application by Orwoba offended the doctrine of exhaustion and amounted to an abuse of the court process.
The judge held that the petitioner had failed to prove contempt, noting that the conservatory order issued on May 15 only restrained the disciplinary committee from proceeding with matters specifically cited in a May 7 letter, and there was no evidence that the committee had violated those exact terms.
On the jurisdictional question, the court found that Orwoba ought to have first pursued her grievances before the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) as required under Section 39 of the Political Parties Act.
Justice Mugambi emphasised that the High Court should be approached only as a last resort or on appeal from the tribunal.
"Courts ought to be the last resort and not the first port of call. The respondent argued that the matter ought to have been endorsed at the 1st port of call before the political parties dispute tribunal in the Political Parties Act," the judge observed.
He noted that Orwoba was pursuing the same dispute simultaneously before both the dispute tribunal and the High Court, a move the court described as an abuse of process.
"Having chosen to pursue the dispute before the tribunal, the petitioner recognises its jurisdiction. She should stay that course and only, if dissatisfied with the outcome, approach the High Court," the judge said.
The court held that because the petition was improperly before it, there was no need to address the other issues and accordingly struck out the case, awarding costs to UDA.
The petition, filed by Orwoba on May 15, 2025, sought to block UDA from proceeding with disciplinary hearings scheduled for the following day.
Orwoba argued that the party's process was improper because there were no laid-down disciplinary rules to guide it, contending that her rights to a fair trial and fair administrative action had been violated.
She alleged the proceedings were politically motivated, claiming they were driven by a witch-hunt over her alleged disloyalty to the party and perceived links to a rival political formation.
UDA, however, opposed the petition, challenging the High Court's jurisdiction and seeking to have the matter struck out.
The party also defended its disciplinary process and denied allegations of contempt of court after Orwoba alleged it had defied interim orders suspending the hearings.
Top Stories Today
