[2013] KEHC 5193 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 5193 (KLR)

The court found that the petition was an improper attack on the educational qualifications of the interested parties, as the law vests the responsibility for determining such qualifications in the returning officer and the IEBC. Any objections regarding qualifications constitute nomination disputes, which the IEBC...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 5193 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Janet Ndago Ekumbo Mbete; Respondent: Hon Attorney General; Respondent: The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission; Respondent: Kenya National Examinations Council; Respondent: University of Nairobi; Respondent: Hon Hassan Ali Joho; Respondent: Hazel Katana
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 39 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Judges
DAS Majanja, CC Kipkorir, GV Odunga
Legal Topics
Election Qualifications, Right to Information, Nomination Disputes
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Election Qualifications Right to Information Nomination Disputes

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Janet Ndago Ekumbo Mbete

Applicant

Hon Attorney General

Respondent

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission

Respondent

Kenya National Examinations Council

Respondent

University of Nairobi

Respondent

Hon Hassan Ali Joho

Respondent

Hazel Katana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Hon Hassan Ali Joho and Hazel Katana met the academic qualifications to vie for Governor and Deputy Governor of Mombasa County.
  2. 2 Whether the nomination of the interested parties was null and void for lack of valid university degrees.
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner's right under Article 38 of the Constitution was violated by the nomination of unqualified candidates.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petition was an improper attack on the educational qualifications of the interested parties, as the law vests the responsibility for determining such qualifications in the returning officer and the IEBC. Any objections regarding qualifications constitute nomination disputes, which the IEBC is empowered to resolve under Article 88(4)(e) of the Constitution. The court further held that the issue of qualification can be raised even after elections. Since the petition lacked merit, the court also rejected the Chamber Summons seeking access to academic records, as it was anchored on the unmeritorious petition. Accordingly, the petition and all related applications were...

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed.
  • The Chamber Summons dated 29th January 2013 is rejected.