[2017] KEMC 4 (KLR)

[2017] KEMC 4 (KLR)

The court found that the Registrar of Persons and the individuals whose details were sought were not parties to the petition, and that the application was brought under the wrong rules and lacked legal basis. The court held that the right to information under Article 35 must be balanced against the privacy rights of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEMC 4 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Feisal Abdinoor Issack; Respondent: I.E.B.C; Respondent: Returning Officer [Mandera East Constituency]; Respondent: Hon. Adan Maalim Abdullahi
Court
Magistrate's Court
Court Station
Election Petition in Magistrate Courts
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Election Petition 4 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Right to Information, Burden of Proof, Privacy Rights, Election Procedure
Source Language
en
Election Petitions Constitutional Law Right to Information Burden of Proof Privacy Rights Election 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Feisal Abdinoor Issack

Applicant

I.E.B.C

Respondent

Returning Officer [Mandera East Constituency]

Respondent

Hon. Adan Maalim Abdullahi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the court should order the Registrar of Persons to produce Form 136A for specified identity card numbers to the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the application is properly brought under the relevant rules and constitutional provisions.
  3. 3 Whether granting the application would violate the privacy rights of non-parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Registrar of Persons and the individuals whose details were sought were not parties to the petition, and that the application was brought under the wrong rules and lacked legal basis. The court held that the right to information under Article 35 must be balanced against the privacy rights of individuals under Article 31, and that such applications should be made in the High Court. Granting the application would violate Rule 4(1) of the Election (Parliamentary and County) Petitions Rules 2017 and prejudice the privacy rights of non-parties. The court concluded that the application amounted to a fishing expedition and dismissed it with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 30th October 2017 is dismissed with costs to the 1st and 2nd respondents.