36 4 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 135 of 2017, held as follows: The appeal before us is on all fours with Lilian Gogo v Joseph Mboya Nyamuthe (supra) on the issue of whether disputes arising out of political parties nominations under Section 40 (1) (fa) are also subject to IDRM. We wholly agree with that finding of the Court and adopt it. Suffice to add that it could not have been the intention of the legislature to make disputes between members of a political party; disputes between a member of a political party and a political party subject to IDRM and exclude disputes arising out of political parties nominations whereas, disputes arising out of political parties nominations are essentially disputes between political parties and its members. Our view is further buttressed by Section 13 (2A) of the Elections Act… 2.4.1.3.6 The jurisdiction of the PPDT has been broadly interpreted to include determination of the question whether a party member’s constitutional rights have been violated. In Jeconia Okungu Ogutu & Another v Orange Democratic Movement Party & 5 Others, Nairobi High Court Election Petition Appeal No. 41 of 2017, the Court, in response to a finding by the PPDT that it had no jurisdiction to determine whether irregularities at the primaries violated the appellants’ constitutional rights under Articles 38 and 91 of the Constitution, held as follows: …the Political Parties Dispute[s] Tribunal misconstrued the provision of Section 40 (1) (a) of the Political Parties Act on the question as to whether the Appellants’ constitutional rights were affected since the issue was corollary to the core issue of determining the question as to whether the elections/ nominations were conducted in accordance with the law, the party constitution and nomination rules. The Tribunal therefore wrongly denied itself jurisdiction to determine a matter strictly within its mandate to hear and determine under Section 40 (1) of the Political Parties Act. (For a different reasoning on the power of the PPDT to interpret the Constitution see R v Chairman, Political Parties Disputes Tribunal & 2 Others Ex Parte Susan Kihika Wakarura, Miscellaneous Civil Application 305 of 2017, which involved a dispute between an independent candidate and a member of a political party. The High Court ruled that while the PPDT has power to apply the Bill of Rights in disputes before it and to promote ‘the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality, equity and freedom’, the interpretative mandate remains the preserve of the High Court, even where political disputes are concerned) 2.4.1.3.7In terms of enforcement of a decision from the PPDT, the same is to be enforced in a similar manner as a decision from a Magistrate’s Court (s 41(3) of the Political Parties Act). Editorial Note: While in 2017 the PPDT did not have express provision in the Political Parties Act empowering it to punish for contempt as s 41 only provided for enforcement similar to Magistrate Court decisions, reference had to be made to s 10(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 2015 and the Contempt of Court Act (see High Court decision upholding this position in Republic v Orange Democratic Movement & Another Ex parte Lawises Juma Otete, Nairobi High Court Miscellaneous Election Petition Appeal No. 7 of 2017). The Tribunal now has the power to punish for contempt of its decisions by virtue of amendment to section 41(3) of the Political Parties Act. This legislative amendment also clarifies that this power is the equivalent of the High Court’s power to punish for contempt, thus resolving the conflicting jurisprudence of the High Court on this issue arising from the 2017 EDR process (See Secretary General & Another v Salah Yakub Farah, Election Petition Appeal No 13 of 2017, where the High Court BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION