The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal has overturned Moitalel Ole Kenta’s appointment as Jubilee Party Secretary General, holding that he was not eligible to occupy the position when he was appointed.
In a ruling delivered by a panel led by Innocent Muganda, the tribunal said Kenta was not a registered member of Jubilee Party at the time of his nomination and appointment, contrary to the party’s constitutional requirements.
The tribunal declared the entire process leading to his appointment and subsequent recognition by the Registrar of Political Parties invalid.
“It is declared that the nomination, appointment and recognition of the sixth respondent, Hon. Koitalel Ole Kenta, as Secretary General of the first respondent, Jubilee Party, was unlawful and void ab initio,” the panel ruled.
The tribunal further quashed Kenta’s appointment and recognition, paving the way for the party to restart the process of selecting a Secretary General in accordance with its constitution.
The case was filed by former Nyeri Town MP Ngunjiri Wambugu, who challenged a series of changes to Jubilee Party’s leadership.
Wambugu, represented by lawyer Moses Mabeya, told the tribunal that the Registrar of Political Parties had failed to properly scrutinise the changes before entering them in the party’s records.
He argued that he had formally objected to the proposed leadership changes but was not given an opportunity to be heard before the Registrar proceeded to recognise the new office bearers.
The dispute also involved the listing of former Interior Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiang’i as Deputy Secretary General and other officials whose names were entered into the register as Jubilee Party officials.
Wambugu named the Registrar of Political Parties, Matiang’i, former Jubilee Secretary General Jeremiah Kioni, Vincent Mogaka Kemosi, Kenta, Zack Kinuthia, Yasir Noor and Dann Mwangi as respondents.
The tribunal, however, did not agree with all the grounds raised by the former MP.
It dismissed claims challenging the eligibility of some of the other officials, saying the allegations were largely based on speculation rather than evidence.
“The complainant’s case on this ground is speculative,” the tribunal said.
The panel also rejected the argument that the failure by the respondents to provide certain records was enough to prove that the officials did not meet the required qualifications.
According to the tribunal, more evidence was required before it could make a finding that any of the officials were disqualified.
It similarly declined to uphold a challenge based on the gender rule, finding that the allegation had not been sufficiently established.
The tribunal nevertheless found the challenge against Kenta’s appointment proved, singling out his lack of party membership as a decisive factor.
