[2022] KECA 920 (KLR)

[2022] KECA 920 (KLR)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in law by finding that the notice of appeal filed in the High Court precluded the appellants from pursuing their application for review before the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal. The appellate court reasoned that there was no express statutory or regulatory bar...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KECA 920 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Amani National Congress Party; Appellant: Amani National Congress Election Board; Appellant: Ramadhan Butichi; Respondent: David Kubasu Shimenga; Respondent: Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Election Petition Appeal E001 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Election Petition Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside; 1st respondent's appeal dismissed; review application remitted to Political Parties Dispute Tribunal; each party to bear own costs.
Judges
PO Kiage, M Ngugi, F Tuiyott
Legal Topics
Notice of Appeal Effect, Review Before Tribunal, Jurisdiction of Political Parties Dispute Tribunal, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
en
Election Petitions Administrative Law Notice of Appeal Effect Review Before Tribunal Jurisdiction of Political Parties Dispute Tribunal Appeal Procedure

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amani National Congress Party

Appellant

Amani National Congress Election Board

Appellant

Ramadhan Butichi

Appellant

David Kubasu Shimenga

Respondent

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the filing of a notice of appeal in the High Court precluded the appellants from pursuing an application for review before the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in allowing the 1st respondent's appeal and dismissing the appellants' review application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in law by finding that the notice of appeal filed in the High Court precluded the appellants from pursuing their application for review before the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal. The appellate court reasoned that there was no express statutory or regulatory bar preventing the appellants from seeking review, and that the remedies of review and appeal are distinct and may be pursued concurrently unless specifically prohibited. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and decree, dismissed the 1st respondent's appeal, and ordered that the appellants' review application be remitted to the Political Parties Dispute...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and decree set aside; 1st respondent's appeal dismissed; review application remitted to Political Parties Dispute Tribunal; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • The judgment and decree of the High Court allowing the 1st respondent’s appeal is set aside.
  • The 1st respondent’s appeal in the High Court is dismissed.