35 nominations ‘is a dispute which should be addressed by the party dispute resolution mechanism or PPDT and not the court directly’ (Magero Gumo v Political Parties Dispute Tribunal & 2 Others, Election Petition Appeal No 11 of 2017). Editorial note: While it was unclear whether the IDRM was required in respect of party nominations during the 2017 elections (Peter Oluoch Owera v David Ruongo Okello & Orange Democratic Movement, Nairobi High Court Election Petition Appeal No. 42 of 2017 at para 5; Eric Kyalo Mutua v Wiper Democratic Movement Kenya & Another, Nairobi High Court Election Petition Appeal No. 4 of 2017, where the court stressed that the PPDT has original jurisdiction on such matters and must not be heard to say that the non-filing of a dispute within the party’s internal process, simpliciter, prohibits a party from moving to the PPDT for relief; Thomas Ludindi Mwadeghu v John Mruttu & Another, Nairobi High Court Election Petition Appeal No. 8 of 2017; Alexander Khamasi Mulimi & 3 Others v Amani National Congress, Nairobi High Court Election Petition Appeal No. 22 of 2017); Mwangi wa Iria v Jamleck Kamau & 5 Others, Nairobi High Court Election Petition Appeal No. 57 of 2017; amendments to the Political Parties Act 2022 have clarified that in respect of party nominations, IDRM is mandatory (section 40(2) Political Parties Act as amended by Political Parties (Amendment) Act 2 of 2022). 2.4.1.3.4 Coalition political parties are also required to make provision for IDRM in their coalition agreements (s 40(3), Political Parties Act) and exhaust this mechanism (Josephine Wairimu Kinyanjui v Pamoja A frican Alliance Party & Another, PPDT Complaint E006 of 2022 (unreported)) and the PPDT mechanisms before approaching the High Court (Martin Maina Mugo v Registrar of Political Parties, Azimio la Umoja One Kenya Coalition & Maendeleo Chap Chap (Interested Party), Civil Appeal E 303 of 2022 (unreported); and Republic v The Registrar of Political Parties & 3 Others Ex Parte Mahat Rashid Hassan, Miscellaneous Application E048 of 2022 (unreported)). 2.4.1.3.5 With regard to independent candidates, the High Court in Wiper Democratic Movement of Kenya v Bernard Muia Tom Kiala & Hon. Wavinya Ndeti, Nairobi High Court Election Petition Appeal No. 31 of 2017 (at para 33), determined that a reading of sections 40(1)(d) and 40(1)(fa) of the Political Parties Act ‘evidently point to a situation where an independent candidate who is aggrieved with certain happening in the party primaries would be entitled to move the PPDT’. The High Court will reverse decisions by the PPDT if the latter prematurely assumes jurisdiction before exhaustion of the party’s IDRM (Kennedy Omondi Obuya v Orange Democratic Movement Party & 2 Others, Nairobi High Court Election Petition Appeal No. 35 of 2017). The Court of Appeal in Dr Lilian Gogo v Joseph Mboya Nyamuthe & 4 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 135 of 2017, confirmed this position when it held as follows: There could well be disputes that arise out of party primaries that do not fall within the categories of disputes set out under paragraphs a, b, c, and e of Section 40(1) of the Act in which case such disputes can be taken directly to PPDT. In the present case, there is no doubt that the dispute arose out of party primaries of the 2nd respondent. That dispute is between members of the same political party. Although it is a dispute arising from the party primaries, it is nonetheless a dispute that falls under paragraphs a, b, c, and e of Section 40(1) of the Act that is required to be heard by the party’s internal dispute resolution mechanism before the PPDT can take cognizance of it. That is the procedure dictated by Section 40 of the Act. Similarly, in the case of Samuel Kalii Kiminza v Jubilee Party & Another, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 157 of 2017, the Court of Appeal, citing the case of Dr Lilian Gogo v Joseph Mboya Nyamuthe & BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION