Former nominated Senator Gloria Orwoba has been ordered to pay costs to the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) after the High Court struck out her petition challenging the party’s disciplinary proceedings against her.
In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, Justice Lawrence Mugambi dismissed Orwoba’s case, finding that it offended the doctrine of exhaustion and amounted to an abuse of the court process.
The petition, filed 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, on the other hand, 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.
Justice Mugambi, in his analysis, 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 determination comes months after a separate petition challenging her expulsion from UDA was also dismissed.
The ruling means Orwoba is now liable for the party’s legal expenses in defending the petition.
