The High Court has struck out a petition challenging the registration of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua 's Democracy for Citizens Party (DCP), ruling that disputes over decisions of the Registrar of Political Parties must first be heard by the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal.
The petition accused former Registrar of Political Parties Anne Nderitu, who is now a member of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), of unlawfully registering the party without verifying statutory requirements.
Justice Roselyne Aburili declined to examine those allegations after finding the court lacked jurisdiction, reinforcing the tribunal's role as the primary forum for registration disputes.
“This court holds that the petition is barred by the doctrine of exhaustion and constitutional avoidance. The petitioners ought to have pursued their remedies in the Political Parties Tribunal before approaching this court,” said Justice Aburili
The petition, filed by Francis Awino and Charles Mc'Olonde in December 2025, sought to invalidate DCP's full registration issued on February 3, 2025. It alleged that the registration was three days after the party received provisional registration.
It named Ms Nderitu as the respondent alongside the Office of the Registrar of Political Parties, the IEBC, the Attorney General and DCP as interested parties.
The petitioners alleged that Ms Nderitu "used shortcuts and fast-tracked the registration" of DCP without verifying the required 24 county offices, conducting physical inspections, confirming membership registers, verifying party organs or ensuring compliance with national presence requirements.
They asked the court to declare the registration unlawful, quash DCP's registration certificate, compel the Registrar to begin the party's deregistration process and bar it from sponsoring candidates until lawfully registered.
They also sought orders directing the IEBC to invalidate any elective positions secured through DCP and requiring the EACC, DCI and Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate Ms Nderitu's conduct.
The petition further challenged Ms Nderitu's continued service as an IEBC commissioner, arguing that her actions while Registrar violated constitutional principles on leadership, integrity, accountability and fair administrative action.
Former Registrar of Political Parties Anne Nderitu.
Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group
It also sought an order compelling the Registrar to produce records relating to DCP's provisional and full registration, including membership registers, inspection reports, committee minutes and internal correspondence.
DCP responded with a preliminary objection arguing that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the Political Parties Act establishes a specialized dispute resolution process.
Ms Nderitu also filed a preliminary objection challenging the petitioner’s decision to sue her in her personal capacity.
DCP maintained that appeals against decisions of the Registrar belong before the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal under Section 40 of the Act.
Justice Aburili concurred, stating that "the complaint is a dispute that squarely falls under Section 40(1)(f) of the Political Parties Act and should have been filed as an appeal directly to the Political Parties Tribunal".
She held that Parliament had created a clear statutory mechanism for challenging decisions of the Registrar and litigants were required to exhaust that process before approaching the High Court.
"Where there is a clear procedure for the redress of any particular grievance prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be followed," the judge said, relying on established appellate decisions on the doctrine of exhaustion.
The court said the petition sought to challenge the Registrar's decision to register DCP, a matter expressly assigned to the tribunal.
It found that the petitioners had bypassed the specialized forum without demonstrating exceptional circumstances that would justify direct recourse to the constitutional court.
Justice Aburili also invoked the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, saying disputes capable of resolution under statutory procedures should not be recast as constitutional litigation.
The court stressed that the tribunal could have considered the complaints surrounding DCP's registration before any constitutional questions arose.
"All other accusations against the respondent are matters which the Tribunal could have decided on before accusing the Registrar of violating the Constitution and the law," it ruled.
