The PPDT emphasised the importance of political parties resolving their disputes internally, as provided for under party constitutions and the law governing political organisations.
According to the tribunal, internal mechanisms are designed to address such disagreements in a structured and orderly manner, and should be exhausted before external bodies are approached.
It noted that allowing cases to proceed without first going through these channels would undermine party systems and processes.
Sifuna had moved to the tribunal seeking to challenge his removal from the influential Secretary General position, arguing that the decision was irregular and did not follow due process.
However, the tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case, focusing instead on procedural requirements.
By striking out the case, the PPDT left room for the matter to be refiled if the internal processes fail to resolve the dispute.
This means that Sifuna and other parties involved may still return to the tribunal at a later stage, depending on the outcome of the internal proceedings.
The decision highlights the legal principle that internal party disputes should first be addressed within the party framework.
It also reinforces the role of party constitutions in guiding how leadership disagreements and disciplinary issues are handled.
The directive now places the responsibility on ODM to convene its dispute resolution structures and address the issues raised by Sifuna.
The outcome of the internal process will likely determine the next course of action, including whether the matter will escalate back to the tribunal.
The case has attracted attention within political circles, given Sifuna’s prominence in the party and the significance of the Secretary General position in managing party affairs.
The dispute also comes at a time when ODM is navigating internal changes and preparing for future political engagements.