[2022] KEHC 15827 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 15827 (KLR)

The court found that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in its previous ruling regarding the number of constituencies and polling stations subject to scrutiny and recount. The polling stations identified for scrutiny and recount spanned all 8 constituencies in Homabay County, not just 7 as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 15827 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Evans Odhiambo Kidero; Applicant: Elijah Odondi Kodoh; Respondent: Independent Electoral and Bounderies Commission; Respondent: County Returning Officer, Homabay County Fredrick Apopa; Respondent: Gladys Atieno Nyasuna Wanga; Respondent: Joseph Oyugi Magwanga; Respondent: Orange Democratic Movement Party
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Election Petition E001 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Ruling on Application for Review and Clarification of Scrutiny and Recount Orders
Outcome
Application for review and clarification allowed; previous orders on scrutiny and recount reviewed and clarified.
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Scrutiny and Recount, Review of Court Orders, Error Apparent on Record, Jurisdiction of Election Court
Source Language
en
Election Petitions Civil Procedure Scrutiny and Recount Review of Court Orders Error Apparent on Record Jurisdiction of Election Court

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evans Odhiambo Kidero

Applicant

Elijah Odondi Kodoh

Applicant

Independent Electoral and Bounderies Commission

Respondent

County Returning Officer, Homabay County Fredrick Apopa

Respondent

Gladys Atieno Nyasuna Wanga

Respondent

Joseph Oyugi Magwanga

Respondent

Orange Democratic Movement Party

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Ruling on Application for Review and Clarification of Scrutiny and Recount Orders

  1. 1 Whether the court can review and clarify its previous orders on scrutiny and recount in an election petition where there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
  2. 2 Whether the scrutiny and recount should cover polling stations in all 8 constituencies or only 7 as previously ordered.
  3. 3 What is the correct scope and procedure for the scrutiny and recount in the context of the petitioners' application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in its previous ruling regarding the number of constituencies and polling stations subject to scrutiny and recount. The polling stations identified for scrutiny and recount spanned all 8 constituencies in Homabay County, not just 7 as previously ordered. The court held that, notwithstanding the absence of express statutory provision for review in the Elections Act and Rules, it had inherent jurisdiction to review and clarify its orders to correct such errors and give effect to the overriding objective of just and fair determination of election petitions. The court relied on persuasive authorities affirming the...

Court Disposition

Application for review and clarification allowed; previous orders on scrutiny and recount reviewed and clarified.

Orders

  • A scrutiny and recount shall be undertaken for the gubernatorial election held on August 9, 2022 in Homabay County in the polling stations specified in paragraph 150 of the ruling dated November 18, 2022, covering all 8 constituencies as listed.
  • A scrutiny of all form 37As from the polling stations set out in tables D1 and D2 of paragraph 20 of the petitioners' affidavit sworn by Dr Evans Odhiambo Kidero in support of the application dated September 29, 2022 shall be conducted.