[2013] KEHC 6075 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 6075 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was duly served with notice of the hearing through SMS and an affidavit of service, and that the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), as a party to the dispute, was present and entered into a consent with the 4th interested party. The Commission acted within its jurisdiction and time constraints, and was not required to follow strict court procedures. The applicant's argument that he was denied a fair hearing was not supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the application was improperly instituted against party officials rather than the political party as a corporate entity, contrary to the Political Parties Act. The court's role in judicial review is...

Citation
[2013] KEHC 6075 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Sam Rateng Okoth Kotiende; Respondent: Franklin Bett; Respondent: Judith Pareno; Respondent: Janet Ong'era; Respondent: Joseph B. Maguanga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
12 February 2013
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 10 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Electoral Nominations, Service of Process
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Election Petitions Judicial Review Natural Justice Electoral Nominations Service of Process

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sam Rateng Okoth Kotiende

Applicant

Franklin Bett

Respondent

Judith Pareno

Respondent

Janet Ong'era

Respondent

Joseph B. Maguanga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was denied the right to be heard in violation of the rules of natural justice.
  2. 2 Whether the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) Nomination Dispute Resolution Committee followed due process in handling the nomination dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the application was properly instituted against the correct parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was duly served with notice of the hearing through SMS and an affidavit of service, and that the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), as a party to the dispute, was present and entered into a consent with the 4th interested party. The Commission acted within its jurisdiction and time constraints, and was not required to follow strict court procedures. The applicant's argument that he was denied a fair hearing was not supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the application was improperly instituted against party officials rather than the political party as a corporate entity, contrary to the Political Parties Act. The court's role in judicial review is...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is disallowed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.