Court rejects UDA bid to halt Gloria Orwoba's reinstatement

The High Court in Nairobi has dismissed an application by the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) Electoral Nomination and Dispute Resolution Committee seeking to stay a tribunal ruling that reinstated nominated Senator Gloria Orwoba to the party, dealing a blow to the party organ’s bid to suspend the decision pending appeal.

In a ruling delivered on April 13, 2026, Justice L. P. Kassan found that the applicant had failed to meet the legal threshold required to grant stay orders.

The judge emphasized that “substantial loss in its various forms is the cornerstone of the Court’s jurisdiction for granting stay,” adding that the applicant had not demonstrated how it would suffer such loss if the orders were not granted.

The dispute stems from a decision by the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT) delivered on August 20, 2025, which declared UDA’s expulsion of Orwoba unlawful, quashed the decision, and barred the party from removing her name from its membership register. The tribunal also issued directives requiring reversal of actions taken to effect her removal.

UDA’s Electoral Nomination and Dispute Resolution Committee argued that it risked being cited for contempt and that its disciplinary mandate would be undermined.

However, Justice Kassan dismissed this argument, stating, “the question of contempt as against the latter does not arise,” noting that the tribunal’s orders were directed at the party and not the specific committee.

The court further rejected claims that the tribunal’s decision would cripple the party’s internal disciplinary processes. Kassan ruled that the orders “do not hinder the Applicant from continuing to carry out disciplinary functions as against errant party members,” underscoring that the ruling was limited to Orwoba’s case.

On the nature of the tribunal orders, the court disagreed with Orwoba’s argument that they were negative and incapable of execution. It held that the orders included “a directive element and or positive connotation requiring certain actions to be done,” and were therefore enforceable.

The judge also struck out a preliminary objection raised by Orwoba challenging the committee’s legal capacity to file the appeal, finding that it was not based on “a settled and crisp point of law” and instead involved contested facts requiring evidence.

Ultimately, the court concluded that without proof of substantial loss, the application could not succeed, stating, “without a demonstration of substantial loss, it would be rare that any other event would render the appeal nugatory.”

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, with the court noting the political nature of the dispute between a party and its member.