[2018] KEHC 3584 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's nomination, gazettement, and swearing-in as a specially elected member of the county assembly constituted a completed election, which could only be challenged by way of an election petition in an election court as provided under the Elections Act. The 1st respondent's attempt to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEHC 3584 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Antonela Lobura; Respondent: Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission; Respondent: Modesta Lalaikipiani; Interested Party: Samburu County Assembly
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nanyuki
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 9 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection overruled
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review Procedure, Election Nomination Disputes, Jurisdiction of High Court
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Antonela Lobura
Applicant
Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission
Respondent
Modesta Lalaikipiani
Respondent
Samburu County Assembly
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a judicial review application challenging the replacement of a nominated county assembly member after gazettement and swearing-in.
- 2 Whether the proper procedure for challenging the replacement of a nominated member is by way of an election petition rather than judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's nomination, gazettement, and swearing-in as a specially elected member of the county assembly constituted a completed election, which could only be challenged by way of an election petition in an election court as provided under the Elections Act. The 1st respondent's attempt to nullify the applicant's election through a subsequent gazette notice was contrary to law and amounted to a nullity. The preliminary objection raised by the 1st respondent, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the application was incompetent, was dismissed as it would perpetuate an illegality and injustice. The court held that it would not countenance such actions...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection overruled
Orders
- The preliminary objection is overruled with costs to the Ex Parte Applicant and the Interested Party as against the 1st Respondent.
- The Ex Parte Applicant is at liberty to prosecute her substantive motion for judicial review.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NANYUKI
JUDICIAL REVIEW CAUSE NO. 9 OF 2017
(FORMERLY NAKURU J.R. CAUSE NO. 28 OF 2017)
ANTONELA LOBURA..................................................EX PARTE APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL ANDBOUNDARIES COMMISSION
2. MODESTA LALAIKIPIANI...................................................RESPONDENTS
AND
SAMBURU COUNTY ASSEMBLY.................................INTERESTED PARTY
R U L I N G
1. On 23/11/2017 this court (Kasango, J.) granted the Ex Parte Applicant, Antonela Lobura, leave to institute judicial review proceedings to seek an order of certiorari “to call for and quash the decision of the 1st Respondent herein vide the Kenya Gazette Notice No. 9391 of 26/09/2017. ..in respect of Samburu County replacing the name of ANTONELA LOBURA with MODESTA LALAIKIPIANI, 2nd Respondent.”The Ex Parte Applicant subsequently filed her substantive notice of motion dated 30/11/2017.
2. On 29/01/2018 the 1st Respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection in respect to that substantive motion. Two points of law are taken up in the notice –
(i) That by dint of the official gazettement and swearing in of the Samburu County Ward Representatives, the Ex Parte Applicant ought to have moved the court by way of an election petition. The substantive judicial review application filed herein is therefore bad in law, incompetent and fatally defective.
(ii) That this court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the substantive judicial review application.
The 1st Respondent also filed on the same date grounds of opposition to the substantive motion.
3. On 21/05/2018 the court directed that the preliminary objection be heard on 19/06/2018 and the parties to file and exchange written submissions before that date.
4. The 1st Respondent, that is, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, filed its submissions in respect to its preliminary objection on 18/06/2018. No other party has filed any submissions in respect to the preliminary objection. However, the Interested Party, Samburu County Assembly, had filed submissions on 01/02/2018 in respect to the substantive notice of motion. It fully supported the Ex Parte Applicant’s case as laid out in the statement of facts and verifying affidavit that were filed together with the application for leave.
5. That case of the Ex Parte Applicant is that she was duly nominated by her political party as a member of the Samburu County Assembly, her nomination was duly gazetted on 28/08/2017, and on 05/09/2017 she was duly sworn in as a specially elected member of the county assembly. Her election to the county assembly was therefore complete and could only be challenged by way of a petition in an election court under the relevant provisions of the Elections Act, and the election could only be nullified by an order of such election court.
6. Instead and completely contrary to law, the 1st Respondent purported to nullify the aforesaid election of the Ex Parte Applicant by issuing a subsequent gazette notice purporting to delete the name of the Ex Parte Applicant and substituting the name of the 2nd Respondent MODESTA LALAIKIPIANI in her place. That subsequent gazette notice, prima facie, is a nullity in law and cannot defeat the completed election (by way of nomination) of the Ex Parte Applicant.
7. It is thus extremely cynical and in bad taste for the 1st Respondent to use the same legal arguments available to the Ex Parte Applicant to try and defeat her substantive case through the preliminary objection the subject of this ruling. It is a perverse thing to try to do!
8. To uphold the 1st Respondent’s preliminary objection would be to permit the perpetuation of an illegality committed by the 1st Respondent and gross injustice to the Ex Parte Applicant. This court will not countenance that.
9. The preliminary objection is overruled with costs to the Ex Parte Applicant and the Interested Party as against the 1st Respondent. The Ex Parte Applicant is at liberty to prosecute her substantive motion for judicial review. It is so ordered.
DATEDANDSIGNED AT NANYUKI THIS DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
H P G WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018