[2017] KEHC 2116 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 2116 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioner failed to plead with specificity the polling stations where alleged irregularities occurred, instead making generalized complaints across all 99 polling stations. The application for scrutiny and recount was not supported by evidence or detailed pleadings identifying disputed stations. The law and judicial precedent require specificity and a sufficient basis for such orders, which the petitioner did not provide. The court held that scrutiny and recount are not intended for fishing expeditions or to unearth new evidence, but must be confined to clearly identified disputes. As the petitioner and his witnesses did not dispute results in any specific...

Citation
[2017] KEHC 2116 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Apungu Arthur Kibira; Respondent: Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission; Respondent: Sylvester Ouma Omollo; Respondent: Omulele Christopher
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
21 November 2017
Case Number
Election Petition 6 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Ruling on Application for Scrutiny and Recount
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
JK Mulwa
Legal Topics
Scrutiny of Votes, Recount of Votes, Pleading Specificity, Burden of Proof, Election Irregularities
Source Language
English
Election Petitions Civil Procedure Scrutiny of Votes Recount of Votes Pleading Specificity Burden of Proof Election Irregularities

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apungu Arthur Kibira

Applicant

Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission

Respondent

Sylvester Ouma Omollo

Respondent

Omulele Christopher

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Ruling on Application for Scrutiny and Recount

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner established sufficient basis for an order of scrutiny and/or recount of votes in Luanda Constituency.
  2. 2 Whether the application for scrutiny and recount met the legal requirement of specificity regarding disputed polling stations.
  3. 3 Whether generalized allegations without specific evidence can justify scrutiny or recount in all polling stations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioner failed to plead with specificity the polling stations where alleged irregularities occurred, instead making generalized complaints across all 99 polling stations. The application for scrutiny and recount was not supported by evidence or detailed pleadings identifying disputed stations. The law and judicial precedent require specificity and a sufficient basis for such orders, which the petitioner did not provide. The court held that scrutiny and recount are not intended for fishing expeditions or to unearth new evidence, but must be confined to clearly identified disputes. As the petitioner and his witnesses did not dispute results in any specific...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for scrutiny and/or recount of votes in all 99 polling stations in Luanda Constituency is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.