Samoel v United Democratic Alliance (Complaint E115 (NRB) of 2022) [2022] KEPPDT 1031 (KLR) (29 September 2022) (Judgment)
Neutral citation:
[2022] KEPPDT 1031 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Complaint E115 (NRB) of 2022
D. Nungo, Chair, K.W Mutuma, FM Mtuweta & Ruth Wairimu Muhoro, Members
September 29, 2022
Between
Philemon Kipkogei Samoel
Complainant
and
United Democratic Alliance
Respondent
Judgment
1.The Complainant is a member of the Respondent. He claims he offered himself to vie for the position of Governor, Trans Nzoia County and paid the nomination fee of Kshs 500,000. He spent a lot of his money in mobilizing his candidature and popularizing the party. The nomination was scheduled for April 14, 2022 but did not take place. The complainant submits that the Respondent misled him to spend money popularizing his candidature yet the Respondent knew they would not conduct nomination.
2.It is the Complainant’s further contention that he has made several complaints to the Respondent’s internal dispute resolution mechanism requesting for a refund of his nomination fees with no avail. He attached two letters dated May 25, 2022 and July 18, addressed to the Respondent.
3.The Complainant accordingly seeks the following reliefs from this Tribunal:-i.An Order directing the refund to the Claimant by the Respondent nomination fees of Kenya Shillings Five Hundred Thousand (Kshs 500,0000).ii.Costs of this suit and interest thereoniii.Such other or further relief as this Honourable Tribunal may deem just to grant.
The Response
4.The Respondent neither entered appearance nor filed a response in these proceedings despite service. The Respondent did not appear before the Tribunal on September 23, 2022 when the Complaint came us for hearing. This is notwithstanding the fact that a hearing notice had been duly served upon them.
Analysis and determination
5.Flowing from the pleadings and submissions, we have isolated the following issues for determination:-i.Whether the Tribunal has Jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.ii.Whether the Complaint is merited?iii.What are the appropriate reliefs to grant.
Whether the Tribunal has Jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.
6.Jurisdiction is everything and it is what gives this Tribunal the power to hear and determine matters that are brought before it. Without jurisdiction, any orders made by this Tribunal amount to a nullity ab initio.
7.The place of jurisdiction in law is well settled as was stated in the locus classicus case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd. [1989], where Nyarangi J A held as follows:Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.'
8.The Tribunal derives its jurisdiction from Article 169 (1) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya as read together with Sections 40 of the Political Parties Act, 2011 (the PPA), which provides as follows: -
9.The instant Complaint being one arising from nominations, Section 40(2) of the PPA requires that the Complainant adduces evidence of an attempt to subject the dispute to the Respondent’s IDRM prior to moving the Tribunal.
10.The Tribunal has to scrutinize whether it has been demonstrated that there was an attempt made by the Complainant to subject the dispute to the Respondent’s IDRM. The Complainant has adduced as evidence letters dated May 25, 2022 and July 18, 2022 addressed to the Respondent in an attempt to have the dispute subject hereof addressed by the party. However, the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s letters.
11.We are of the considered opinion that the Respondent should have at the very least responded to the letter. Such was the consideration of the Court of Appeal in the case of Samuel Kalii Kiminza v Jubilee Party & Another [2017] eKLR, where it was observed as follows: -
12.In a nutshell, taking into consideration the foregoing, we find that the Complainant has demonstrated that he made an honest attempt at IDRM in vain and that we accordingly have jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter. The Complaint is therefore properly before the Tribunal.
Whether the Complaint is merited and what are the appropriate reliefs to grant?
13.As already highlighted, it is the Complainant’s case that he paid the nomination fee of Kenya shillings five hundred thousand (Kshs 500,000/-) to be nominated as the Governor, Trans Nzoia County. The Complainant has furnished us evidence of the subject payment. He, however, contends that no nominations were conducted. The Respondents were served with processes herein but they neither entered appearance nor filed any defense. In essence, the facts as presented by the Complainant have not been controverted. Noting that there is evidence of payment of the sums claimed and further noting that the facts in respect thereto have not been challenged, we find no reason to disallow the claim. We thus arrive at the conclusion that the Complaint has merit and that the Complainant has proven his case on a balance of probabilities.
What are the appropriate relief in the present circumstances?
14.Having found that the claim has merit, we have no option but to allow the same.
15.Turning to the question of costs, the general rule is that costs follow the event and we find no reason to depart from the same. Accordingly, we award the Complainant costs of these proceedings.
Disposition
16.In light of the foregoing, we order as follows: -i.An Order be and is hereby issued directing the Respondent to refund the Complainant nomination fees of Kenya Shillings Five Hundred Thousand (Kshs 500,0000/-).ii.Costs of these proceedings are hereby awarded to the Complainant.Orders accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022.DESMA NUNGO(CHAIRPERSON)DR. KENNETH MUTUMA(MEMBER)FLORA M. MAGHANGA-MTUWETA(MEMBER)RUTH WAIRIMU MUHORO(MEMBER)