[2013] KEHC 5609 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 5609 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the legal requirement to nominate persons from the original party list submitted prior to the elections. The 6th Interested Party, Agnes Njoki Waithaka, was not on the original list, and there was no evidence that the respondent had exhausted the original...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 5609 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Imelda Nafula Wanjala; Respondent: Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Election Petition 329 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition allowed in part
Legal Topics
Party List Nominations, Gender Top Up Seats, Electoral Dispute Resolution
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Election Petitions Party List Nominations Gender Top Up Seats Electoral Dispute Resolution

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imelda Nafula Wanjala

Applicant

Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondent lawfully omitted the petitioner from the TNA party list for Nairobi County gender top up nominations.
  2. 2 Whether the nomination of Agnes Njoki Waithaka in place of the petitioner was in accordance with Article 177 of the Constitution and section 34 of the Elections Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was required to exhaust the original party list before considering a re-submitted list.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the legal requirement to nominate persons from the original party list submitted prior to the elections. The 6th Interested Party, Agnes Njoki Waithaka, was not on the original list, and there was no evidence that the respondent had exhausted the original list or formally called for a new one. The respondent's nomination of the 6th Interested Party in place of the petitioner was therefore irregular and contrary to Article 177 of the Constitution and section 34 of the Elections Act. The court remitted the matter to the respondent to reconsider and carry out the gender top up nominations in accordance with the law.

Court Disposition

petition allowed in part

Orders

  • The matter is remitted to the respondent to reconsider and carry out the gender top up nominations in accordance with Article 177 of the Constitution and section 34 of the Elections Act.
  • The respondent shall render its decision within 14 days and thereafter gazette the nominee.