[2017] KEHC 1694 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 1694 (KLR)

The court held that since the documents marked 'C' and 'B1' did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules, they were properly expunged from the record in the earlier ruling. The court further held that it cannot revisit or go behind its own orders to admit...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 1694 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Chris Munga N. Bichage; Applicant: Zaheer Jhanda; Applicant: James F. O Kenani; Respondent: I.E.B.C; Respondent: Julius Meja Okeyo (Returning Officer); Respondent: Richard Nyagaka Tongi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Election Petition 12 & 10 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Application to rely on expunged documents dismissed; 2nd and 3rd Petitioners precluded from relying on documents marked 'C' and 'B1'.
Judges
AG Ndung'u
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Affidavit Requirements, Statutory Declarations, Expunging Documents
Source Language
en
Election Petitions Admissibility of Evidence Affidavit Requirements Statutory Declarations Expunging Documents

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chris Munga N. Bichage

Applicant

Zaheer Jhanda

Applicant

James F. O Kenani

Applicant

I.E.B.C

Respondent

Julius Meja Okeyo (Returning Officer)

Respondent

Richard Nyagaka Tongi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

  1. 1 Whether documents marked 'C' and 'B1' can be relied upon by the 2nd and 3rd Petitioners despite non-compliance with Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the court can revisit its previous order expunging documents from the record.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that since the documents marked 'C' and 'B1' did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 9 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Rules, they were properly expunged from the record in the earlier ruling. The court further held that it cannot revisit or go behind its own orders to admit evidence that has already been expunged. Consequently, the 2nd and 3rd Petitioners are precluded from relying on the expunged documents in support of their petition.

Court Disposition

Application to rely on expunged documents dismissed; 2nd and 3rd Petitioners precluded from relying on documents marked 'C' and 'B1'.

Orders

  • Documents marked 'C' and 'B1' remain expunged from the record.
  • 2nd and 3rd Petitioners are precluded from relying on the expunged documents.