The High Court has thrown out a petition challenging the registration of former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s Democracy for Citizens Party (DCP).
In her ruling, Justice Roselyne Aburili made it clear that litigants must first take disputes regarding the Registrar of Political Parties to the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal. The petitioners had accused the former Registrar of Political Parties, Anne Nderitu, who now serves as an Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) commissioner, of unlawfully registering the party without verifying essential statutory requirements.
Justice Aburili declined to review these allegations, pointing to the court’s lack of jurisdiction and cementing 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.
Francis Awino and Charles Mc’Olonde filed the petition in December 2025 to invalidate the full registration certificate that DCP received on February 3, 2025. They alleged that the office issued this full registration just three days after granting provisional status.
The lawsuit 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. In their filings, the petitioners claimed that Ms. Nderitu “used shortcuts and fast-tracked the registration” of DCP. They argued she bypassed physical inspections, failed to verify membership registers or party organs, and ignored requirements for 24 county offices and a national presence.
To remedy this, the petitioners asked the High Court to declare the registration unlawful, quash DCP’s registration certificate, and force the Registrar to start deregistering the party. They also wanted to block DCP from sponsoring any candidates until it secured lawful registration.
Nderitu’s Fitness as IEBC Commissioner Questioned
Furthermore, they sought orders to force the IEBC to invalidate any elective seats won under the DCP banner. Finally, they called on the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), and the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate Ms. Nderitu’s conduct.
The legal challenge went even further, questioning Ms. Nderitu’s fitness to serve as an IEBC commissioner. The petitioners argued that her past actions as Registrar violated constitutional standards on leadership, integrity, accountability, and fair administrative action.
To prove their case, they asked the court to compel the Registrar to hand over all DCP records, including membership registers, inspection reports, committee minutes, and internal correspondence.
In response, DCP filed a preliminary objection arguing that the Political Parties Act sets up a specialized dispute process, meaning the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. Ms. Nderitu also filed her own objection, contesting the petitioners’ decision to sue her in her personal capacity. DCP stood firm that Section 40 of the Act directs all appeals against the Registrar’s decisions straight to the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal.
Justice Aburili agreed entirely with this stance. She stated 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”.
The judge pointed out that Parliament designed a specific statutory path for challenging the Registrar, and litigants must exhaust this route before heading to 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,” she noted, citing established appellate precedents on the doctrine of exhaustion.
Because the petition targeted the Registrar’s decision to register DCP, the court ruled that the matter belonged exclusively to the tribunal. It concluded that the petitioners had bypassed this specialized forum without showing any exceptional circumstances to justify going straight to a constitutional court.
Justice Aburili also applied the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, explaining that litigants should not disguise straightforward statutory disputes as constitutional battles. The court highlighted that the tribunal had full authority to resolve the complaints about DCP’s registration before any constitutional issues ever needed to be raised.
“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,” the court ruled.
