[2017] KEHC 3551 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 3551 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioners failed to prove their allegations against the respondent to the required standard. The only evidence presented was an affidavit, and no oral evidence was adduced, depriving the respondent of the opportunity to challenge the claims through cross-examination. Given the seriousness...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 3551 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Ltodiyan Lekanoi and 20 others (East Africa Centre for Law and Justice, suing on their own behalf and on behalf of Angata – Nanyukie Ward residents); Respondent: Hon. John Lepil Lolkile; Respondent: Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission; Respondent: Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nanyuki
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Constitutional Petition 4 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed with costs
Judges
MM Kasango
Legal Topics
Leadership and Integrity, Representation of Constituents, Rights of Minors, Burden of Proof, Public Office Qualification
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Family and Children Leadership and Integrity Representation of Constituents Rights of Minors Burden of Proof Public Office Qualification

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ltodiyan Lekanoi and 20 others (East Africa Centre for Law and Justice, suing on their own behalf and on behalf of Angata – Nanyukie Ward residents)

Applicant

Hon. John Lepil Lolkile

Respondent

Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission

Respondent

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the respondent contravened the Constitution of Kenya and is unfit to hold public or state office.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent violated the representation rights of the people of Angata – Nanyukie Ward.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent violated the rights of minor girls in the ward.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioners failed to prove their allegations against the respondent to the required standard. The only evidence presented was an affidavit, and no oral evidence was adduced, depriving the respondent of the opportunity to challenge the claims through cross-examination. Given the seriousness of the allegations, including constitutional violations and misconduct, the court held that strict proof was necessary. In the absence of such proof, the petition was deemed hollow and lacking substance. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition with costs to all parties, emphasizing that unsubstantiated claims cannot form the basis for granting far-reaching constitutional...

Court Disposition

petition dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The petition is hereby dismissed with costs to all the parties.
  • The 1st interested party is awarded costs against the petitioner on the Notice of Motion dated 21st June 2017.