[2017] KEPPDT 31 (KLR)

[2017] KEPPDT 31 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the party's IDRM did not properly consider all relevant facts and evidence, particularly the testimony of the Returning Officer and the 1st Respondent, before making its determination. The Tribunal gave weight to the affidavit and documentary evidence of the Returning Officer, which...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEPPDT 31 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Gabriel Odongo Owidi; Respondent: Geoffrey Otieno Opiyo; Respondent: Orange Democratic Movement
Court
Political Parties Disputes Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Complaint 286 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Party Nominations, Internal Dispute Resolution, Natural Justice, Political Rights
Source Language
en
Election Petitions Administrative Law Party Nominations Internal Dispute Resolution Natural Justice Political Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gabriel Odongo Owidi

Appellant

Geoffrey Otieno Opiyo

Respondent

Orange Democratic Movement

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant should be gazetted as the 2nd Respondent's nominee for Member of County Assembly, South Kasipul Ward, Kasipul Constituency, Homa Bay County.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the party's IDRM did not properly consider all relevant facts and evidence, particularly the testimony of the Returning Officer and the 1st Respondent, before making its determination. The Tribunal gave weight to the affidavit and documentary evidence of the Returning Officer, which established that the nomination exercise was peaceful, free, and fair, and that the 1st Respondent was duly declared the winner. The Claimant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to the party's nomination. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the 1st Respondent was the rightful nominee and dismissed the Claimant's application.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The application dated 18th May 2017 is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.