[2013] KEHC 6232 (KLR)
The court found that the IEBC Dispute Resolution Committee correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over disputes concerning the preparation of party lists, as the complainants were not included on the lists submitted to the IEBC. Furthermore, the court held that there is no constitutional or statutory...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 6232 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Justice K. Kemei; Applicant: Rose Chepngeno Kaptich; Applicant: Bethwel Kiprotich Langat; Respondent: United Republican Party; Respondent: Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 295 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- petition dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Party List Nominations, Regional Representation, Electoral Disputes
- 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
Justice K. Kemei
Applicant
Rose Chepngeno Kaptich
Applicant
Bethwel Kiprotich Langat
Applicant
United Republican Party
Respondent
Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the party list nominations to the Kericho County Assembly failed to ensure regional balance and representation of Sigowet/Soin Constituency.
- 2 Whether the IEBC Dispute Resolution Committee had jurisdiction to determine disputes regarding the preparation of party lists.
- 3 Whether there is a constitutional or statutory requirement for regional distribution or balancing in party list nominations.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the IEBC Dispute Resolution Committee correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over disputes concerning the preparation of party lists, as the complainants were not included on the lists submitted to the IEBC. Furthermore, the court held that there is no constitutional or statutory requirement mandating regional distribution or balancing in party list nominations. The mere failure to allocate seats to a particular constituency does not, in itself, negate the object of diversity in the absence of further evidence. Consequently, the petitioners failed to demonstrate any error or legal basis for reviewing the Committee's decisions, and the petition was dismissed.
Court Disposition
petition dismissed
Orders
- The petition is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION
PETITION NO. 295 OF 2013
BETWEEN
JUSTICE K. KEMEI ................................................... 1ST PETITIONER
ROSE CHEPNGENO KAPTICH ............................. 2ND PETITIONER
BETHWEL KIPROTICH LANGAT ......................... 3RD PETITIONER
AND
UNITED REPUBLICAN PARTY ........................... 1ST RESPONDENT
THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND
BOUNDARIES COMMISSION ........................... 2ND RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Before the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission “IEBC” Dispute Resolution Committee, the 1st petitioner, the current Member of National Assembly for Sigowet/Soin Constituency, contended that the United Republican Party (URP) nominations to Kericho County Assembly were improper due to under representation of Sigowet/Soin Constituency. Rose Chepngeno Kaptich contended that, “Sigowet Soin Constituency was not allocated any seats under the gender Top-up list in the whole County” and that the County had 17 slots and that her nomination would have ensured regional balance. Bethwell Kiprotich Langat stated that no seat has been allocated to the marginalised Sigowet/Soin Constituency in which he would have been selected.
The IEBC Dispute Resolution Committee in Complaint No. 240/2013(Rose Chepngeno Kaptich v URP) stated as follows, “[t]he Complainant is not on the Party List submitted to the IEBC. The Committee has no jurisdiction over disputes relating to the process of preparation of the party list submitted to the IEBC.There is no requirement that nominations should consider regional distribution or balancing of the constituencies. Article 90(2) of the Constitution provides that nominations are considered on priority as per the party list.”
Likewise in complaint No. 239 of 2013 (Betwel Kiprotich Langat v URP) the Committee noted that, “The complainant is not on the party list submitted to the IEBC. The Committee has no jurisdiction over disputes relating to the process of preparation of the party list submitted to the IEBC. There is no requirement that nominations to the party list should consider all wards in a county. Hence the complaint is without ground.”
On the basis of the above reasoning we do not find any error entitling us to review the decisions. The issue on failure to take into account the wards in the constituency alone does not negate the object of diversity without any further evidence.
The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 12th July 2013.
MUMBI NGUGI D.S. MAJANJA W. K. KORIR
JUDGEJUDGE JUDGE