[2017] KEHC 4672 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 4672 (KLR)

The court found that section 22 of the Elections Act, which requires candidates for certain elective offices to possess a university degree, is not unconstitutional. The Constitution, specifically Article 99(1)(b), empowers Parliament to prescribe educational, moral, and ethical requirements for candidates. The court held that the educational requirements set by Parliament are reasonable, justifiable, and consistent with the Constitution. The limitation imposed by section 22 is permissible under Article 24, as it is a reasonable and justifiable restriction in an open and democratic society. The court relied on persuasive judicial precedents, including John Harun Mwau v IEBC and Hon....

Citation
[2017] KEHC 4672 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Ngacha Karani (on his own behalf and on behalf of Wanjiku Awareness Forum); Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: The Hon. The Speaker, National Assembly; Respondent: The National Assembly; Respondent: The Hon. The Speaker, Senate; Respondent: The Senate; Respondent: The Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kerugoya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
29 June 2017
Case Number
Petition 2 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed
Judges
LW Gitari
Legal Topics
Right to Participate in Elections, Educational Qualifications for Candidates, Discrimination, Limitation of Rights, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Election Petitions Right to Participate in Elections Educational Qualifications for Candidates Discrimination Limitation of Rights Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Ngacha Karani (on his own behalf and on behalf of Wanjiku Awareness Forum)

Applicant

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

The Hon. The Speaker, National Assembly

Respondent

The National Assembly

Respondent

The Hon. The Speaker, Senate

Respondent

The Senate

Respondent

The Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 22 of the Elections Act No. 24 of 2011 is unconstitutional for requiring candidates for certain elective offices to hold a university degree.
  2. 2 Whether the educational qualification requirement under section 22 of the Elections Act violates the petitioners' rights under Articles 27, 28, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 99, 137 and 180 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the limitation imposed by section 22 of the Elections Act is reasonable and justifiable under Article 24 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that section 22 of the Elections Act, which requires candidates for certain elective offices to possess a university degree, is not unconstitutional. The Constitution, specifically Article 99(1)(b), empowers Parliament to prescribe educational, moral, and ethical requirements for candidates. The court held that the educational requirements set by Parliament are reasonable, justifiable, and consistent with the Constitution. The limitation imposed by section 22 is permissible under Article 24, as it is a reasonable and justifiable restriction in an open and democratic society. The court relied on persuasive judicial precedents, including John Harun Mwau v IEBC and Hon....

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • No order as to costs.