[2017] KEELC 3700 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that the Complainant had established, through evidence and the findings of two internal party tribunals, that the nomination process was marred by irregularities and violence perpetrated by the 2nd Respondent. Both the ODM Migori County Elections Appeals Tribunal and the Special County Appeals...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 3700 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jackline Atieno Ongoro; Respondent: Orange Democratic Movement Party; Respondent: Bassil Otieno Odero
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Complaint 55 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Election Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- complaint allowed
- Legal Topics
- Party Nominations, Internal Dispute Resolution, Nomination Certificate Revocation
- 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
Jackline Atieno Ongoro
Applicant
Orange Democratic Movement Party
Respondent
Bassil Otieno Odero
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st Respondent should be compelled to issue the Complainant with the final nomination certificate for Member of County Assembly, Kanyasa Ward.
- 2 Whether the nomination process was marred by irregularities perpetrated by the 2nd Respondent.
- 3 Whether the internal party dispute resolution mechanisms were properly followed and their decisions should be upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the Complainant had established, through evidence and the findings of two internal party tribunals, that the nomination process was marred by irregularities and violence perpetrated by the 2nd Respondent. Both the ODM Migori County Elections Appeals Tribunal and the Special County Appeals Tribunal independently determined that the Complainant was the rightful winner and directed that the nomination certificate be issued to her. The Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with these internal decisions, as due process was followed and the findings were consistent. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the 1st Respondent must issue the final nomination certificate to the...
Court Disposition
complaint allowed
Orders
- An injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from submitting the name of the 2nd Respondent to the IEBC as nominee for Member of County Assembly, Kanyasa Ward.
- Declaration that Jackline Atieno Ongoro is the bona fide nominee of the 1st Respondent for Member of County Assembly, Kanyasa Ward.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
THE POLITICAL PARTIES DISPUTES TRIBUNAL
COMPLAINT NO. 55 OF 2017
JACKLINE ATIENO ONGORO..........................................COMPLAINANT
-VERSUS-
ORANGE DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT PARTY.........1ST RESPONDENT
BASSIL OTIENO ODERO...........................................2ND RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Summary of the Complaint
1. This is a complaint arising out the nomination exercise by the 1st Respondent that was held on 24/4/2017 for the position of Member of County Assembly, Kanyasa Ward, Nyatike Constituency, Migori County. The Complainant was a contestant alongside the 2nd Respondent. She avers that she had a clear win in 12 out of the 18 polling stations. The Returning Officer declared her as holding position 2 with 1,361 votes against two other male aspirants and in particular the 2nd Respondent herein who allegedly garnered 1,378 votes.
2. The Complainant contested the nomination results at the ODM Migori County Elections Appeals Tribunal (hereinafter IDRM) raising certain instances of irregularities and violence more targeting the Complainant and largely allegedly occasioned by the 2nd Respondent against the Complainant. The said IDRM found that the 2nd Respondent had indeed conspired with persons not party members to defeat the Complainant. As such the provisional certificate issued to the 2nd Respondent was cancelled and/or withdrawn and the said IDRM directed that the Complainant be issued with the final nomination certificate as its nominee for MCA, Kanyasa Ward.
3. The decision of the said IDRM was reconsidered by the 1st Respondent’s special County Appeals Tribunal which proceeded to summon the Complainant. The Complainant appeared at the said Special County Appeals Tribunal which by its decision delivered on 6th May 2017, ordered that the certificate be issued to the Complainant while the final certificate issued to the 2nd Respondent to be revoked. The Complaint is supported by an Affidavit & Supplementary Affidavit dated 12/5/2017. The Complainant also filed written submissions.
4. The Respondent did not appear or participate in the proceedings before the Tribunal. An affidavit of service was filed by Patrick Akhenda on 13th May 2017 in which he depones that he duly effected service on both Respondents.
Issues for determination
5. From the Amended Plaint filed on 13th May 2017 the issue for determination is whether the 1st Respondent should be compelled to issue the Complainant with the final nomination certificate.
Analysis
6. We have perused the pleadings and evidence adduced by the Complainant. The allegations that the nomination process was marred with irregularities seem to have been found plausible by the IDRM process. The said IDRM process upon inquiries also found that most of the irregularities were perpetuated by the 2nd Respondent. Two internal processes within the party were concerned that the 2nd Respondent was the perpetrator of the irregularities and on two occasions ordered the revocation of the nomination certificate issued to the 2nd Respondent and instead directed that a certificate be issued to the Complainant. The two processes within the 1st Respondent concurred in their findings that the Complainant was the winner and we see no reason to interfere with those decisions.
Orders
7. From the foregoing, we find that the Complainant succeeds in her complaint as averred through an Amended Plaint filed on 13th May 2017. We therefore grant the following prayers;
a) An injunction be and is hereby granted restraining the 1st and/or the 2nd Respondents whether by themselves, their servants, agents, proxies and any other person acting under their authority from submitting the name of the 2nd Respondent to the Independent Elections & Boundaries Commission as the 1st Respondent’s nominee for the position of Member of County Assembly for Kanyasa Ward, Nyatike Constituency, Migori County, arising out of the nomination exercise held on 24th April, 2017.
b) The Complainant herein, JACKLINE ATIENO ONGORO, is the bonafide 1st Respondent’s nominee of the position of Member of County Assembly, Kanyasa Ward, Nyatike Constituency, Migori County.
c) An order be and is hereby issued directed at the 1st Respondent to cancel the nomination certificate issued to the 2nd Respondent and instead issue the Nomination Certificate to the Complainant herein, JACKLINE ATIENO ONGORO.
d) Notice of this decision to issue to the Independent & Electoral Boundaries Commission.
e) No order as to costs.
Orders accordingly.
DATED and DELIVERED AT NAIROBI this 13TH DAY of MAY 2017
1. M. O. Lwanga ………………………………………. (Presiding Member)
2. Desma Nungo ….………………………………….. (Member)
3. Dr. Adelaide Mbithi ………………………….….. (Member)