[2013] KEHC 5167 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 5167 (KLR)

The court found that while the applicant was the winner of the party nomination and was duly forwarded by the party as its candidate, the proceedings that led the IEBC to reverse that decision were not before the court. The court emphasized its limited jurisdiction over IEBC decisions, which extends only to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 5167 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jacqueline Nziva Munyao; Respondent: The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC); Respondent: The Secretary General, Wiper Democratic Movement - Kenya; Respondent: __MISSING__
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 103 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application declined; matter referred back to IEBC for reconsideration.
Judges
DO Ogembo
Legal Topics
Electoral Nominations, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Right to Be Heard
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Election Petitions Electoral Nominations Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Right to Be Heard

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

Jacqueline Nziva Munyao

Applicant

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)

Respondent

The Secretary General, Wiper Democratic Movement - Kenya

Respondent

__MISSING__

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Judicial Review

  1. 1 Whether the IEBC's decision to confirm the 3rd Respondent as the duly nominated aspirant was procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to intervene in IEBC's decisions regarding party nominations.
  3. 3 Whether the 3rd Respondent's right to be heard was violated by not being served with the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicant was the winner of the party nomination and was duly forwarded by the party as its candidate, the proceedings that led the IEBC to reverse that decision were not before the court. The court emphasized its limited jurisdiction over IEBC decisions, which extends only to procedural justice and not to the merits of the nomination. Furthermore, the application had not been served on the 3rd Respondent, who had acquired a right by virtue of the IEBC's decision and could not be deprived of that right without being heard. Consequently, the court declined to interfere with the IEBC's decision but directed the IEBC to reconsider the matter in light of the...

Court Disposition

Application declined; matter referred back to IEBC for reconsideration.

Orders

  • IEBC is directed to have a second look into the matter in light of the evidence and the record sent by the 2nd Respondent.
  • No adverse orders made against the 3rd Respondent due to lack of service.