[2013] KEHC 5225 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 5225 (KLR)

The court found that the IEBC Tribunal had considered the applicant's complaint and dismissed it for want of evidence. Upon review of the material before it, the court was satisfied that the tribunal had dealt with the matter in accordance with the law and detected no departure from legal principles. Consequently,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 5225 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Michael Mungai; Respondent: Ford Kenya Elections and Nominations Board & Others; Respondent: Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission; Interested Party: Jeffrey M Maloba
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 53 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DAS Majanja, CC Kipkorir, GV Odunga
Legal Topics
Party Nominations, Candidate Certification, Electoral Tribunal Review
Source Language
en
Election Petitions Party Nominations Candidate Certification Electoral Tribunal Review

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Mungai

Applicant

Ford Kenya Elections and Nominations Board & Others

Respondent

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission

Respondent

Jeffrey M Maloba

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to be issued with a nomination certificate by Ford Kenya for the Embakasi Central Parliamentary seat.
  2. 2 Whether the IEBC and Ford Kenya should replace the interested party's name with the applicant's in the list of nominees.
  3. 3 Whether there were irregularities in the party primary justifying court intervention.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the IEBC Tribunal had considered the applicant's complaint and dismissed it for want of evidence. Upon review of the material before it, the court was satisfied that the tribunal had dealt with the matter in accordance with the law and detected no departure from legal principles. Consequently, there was no justification for the court to interfere with the tribunal's decision or to grant the orders sought by the applicant.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dated 30th January 2013 is dismissed with no order as to costs.