[2020] KEHC 6965 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the petitioners' claims, as previously determined in Petition No. 7 of 2017 at Kisumu. The doctrine of jurisdiction, as articulated in the Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” case, dictates that a court must down its tools immediately upon determining it...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 6965 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Busia County Persons With Disability Network; Applicant: Ronald Onyango Obiero; Applicant: Michael Maketso; Applicant: Grace Ajune Ong’aria; Applicant: Grace Akuloba Wangatia; Respondent: IEBC; Respondent: The Chairman IEBC; Respondent: The Clerk of Assembly of Busia
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Constitutional Petition 1 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (jurisdiction)
- Outcome
- petition struck out for want of jurisdiction; costs to petitioners
- Judges
- KW Kiarie
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of High Court, Res Judicata, Election Related Petitions
- 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
Busia County Persons With Disability Network
Applicant
Ronald Onyango Obiero
Applicant
Michael Maketso
Applicant
Grace Ajune Ong’aria
Applicant
Grace Akuloba Wangatia
Applicant
IEBC
Respondent
The Chairman IEBC
Respondent
The Clerk of Assembly of Busia
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (jurisdiction)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the petitioners' claims.
- 2 Whether the matter is res judicata in light of a previous decision.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the petitioners' claims, as previously determined in Petition No. 7 of 2017 at Kisumu. The doctrine of jurisdiction, as articulated in the Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” case, dictates that a court must down its tools immediately upon determining it lacks jurisdiction. The petitioners disregarded the prior ruling by filing in the wrong forum. The issue of res judicata, while raised, is to be addressed by the court with proper jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition is struck out for want of jurisdiction, and the petitioners are ordered to pay costs for failing to heed the earlier directive.
Court Disposition
petition struck out for want of jurisdiction; costs to petitioners
Orders
- The petition is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- Petitioners to shoulder the costs of the petition.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT BUSIA
CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 1 OF 2018
BUSIACOUNTY PERSONS
WITH DISABILITY NETWORK......................1ST PETITIONER
RONALD ONYANGO OBIERO .......................2ND PETITIONER
MICHAEL MAKETSO.......................................3RD PETITIONER
GRACE AJUNE ONG’ARIA .............................4TH PETITIONER
GRACE AKULOBA WANGATIA ..................5TH PETITTIONER
AND
IEBC......................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
THE CHAIRMAN IEBC....................................2ND RESPONDENT
THE CERK OF ASSEMBLY OF BUSIA..........3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The issue of jurisdiction has been raised in this matter and the petitioners/respondents admitted that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues therein. This is not new. The same matter was before High Court of Kenya at Kisumu in Petition No.7 of 2017. That petition was struck out for want of jurisdiction. Justice Majanja addressed the issue of jurisdiction adequately. Instead of the petitioners filing the matter in Chief Magistrate’s Court, they filed the same in the High court contrary to the ruling of Majanja J.
2. An issue of res judicata has been raised by the respondents. This is an issue that can be addressed by the court with the requisite jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal in the case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1 (Justice Nyarangi) while addressing the issue of jurisdiction stated:
I think that it is reasonably plain that a question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the court seized of the matter is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it. Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.
3. I do not wish to reinvent the wheel. I am therefore making an order that this matter be struck out for want of jurisdiction. Since the petitioners did not heed the previous ruling, they will shoulder the costs herein.
DELIVEREDandSIGNEDatBUSIA this 8thdayof April, 2020
KIARIE WAWERU KIARIE
JUDGE