The High Court said the only evidence brought before the court showed that MDC-A was an alliance of other political parties, and although it had been given the status of a political party under the Electoral Act, this did not make it a legal person able to sue and be sued, in the absence of other requirements such as a decision to be a legally incorporated voluntary organisation or another type of body corporate.

The finding of the court on the MDC-A legal status had a bearing on two legislators -- Happymore Chidziva and Wellington Mariga -- who associated themselves with the party's application seeking to block further recalls and expulsions from Parliament of any more MPs elected into Parliament on the MDC-A ticket.

"The application is and it is accordingly, dismissed with costs . . . "

In his ruling, Justice Chitapi found that the MDC Alliance Agreement constituted the entire agreement of the parties to it, but did not spell out the legal status of the MDC-Alliance.

Prof Madhuku's main argument was that the court could not hear the case for two reasons, that a political party had no inherent constitutional right to sue on behalf of Members of Parliament and that the MDC-A was not a legal person, being just an umbrella body for a group of political parties.

Arguing for MDC Alliance, the main argument of Mr Alec Muchadehama and Mr Tendai Biti was that the MDC Alliance was the actual party that had sponsored the legislators in the election and that therefore the MDC-T, whatever its legal status, could not recall legislators since the MDC-A was now in fact, a party in its own right.

BlackFacts Details

Kenya: Court Awards Matatu Driver Sh100,000 for Wrongful Arrest

Lifestyle Facts

Women Facts