[2022] KEHC 10062 (KLR)

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2022] KEHC 10062 (KLR)
Parties: Applicant: Fred Muka; Applicant: Frankline Shilingi Anguche; Respondent: Cleophas Wakhungu Malala; Respondent: Vice Chancellor United States International University; Respondent: United States International University; Respondent: Commission for University Education; Respondent: Kenya National Examinations Council; Respondent: Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission; Respondent: Returning Officer, Kakamega County; Respondent: Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission; Respondent: Director of Criminal Investigations; Respondent: Joseph Ayatta-County Returning Officer Kakamega; Interested Party: Commission for University Education; Interested Party: Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission; Interested Party: Director of Criminal Investigations
Court: High Court
Court Station: High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction: Kenya
Case Number: Constitutional Petition E002 of 2022
Procedural Posture: Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Ruling on Adjournment and Interim Orders
Outcome: Interlocutory orders issued; bar on gazettement lifted; matter adjourned for further directions.
Judges: PJO Otieno
Legal Topics: Leadership and Integrity, Qualification for Public Office, Right to Fair Hearing, Access to Information
Source Language: en

Constitutional Law Election Petitions Leadership and Integrity Qualification for Public Office Right to Fair Hearing Access to Information

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 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Fred Muka

Applicant

Frankline Shilingi Anguche

Applicant

Cleophas Wakhungu Malala

Respondent

Vice Chancellor United States International University

Respondent

United States International University

Respondent

Commission for University Education

Respondent

Kenya National Examinations Council

Respondent

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission

Respondent

Returning Officer, Kakamega County

Respondent

Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission

Respondent

Director of Criminal Investigations

Respondent

Joseph Ayatta-County Returning Officer Kakamega

Respondent

Commission for University Education

Interested Party

Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission

Interested Party

Director of Criminal Investigations

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Interlocutory Ruling on Adjournment and Interim Orders

Legal Issues

1 Whether the 1st Respondent meets the constitutional and statutory qualifications to contest the gubernatorial election for Kakamega County.
2 Whether the relevant state agencies have discharged their duty to provide information regarding the 1st Respondent's academic qualifications.
3 Whether the court should maintain or lift the interim bar on gazettement of the 1st Respondent pending determination of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the question of legal qualification to contest for the gubernatorial position is a threshold constitutional issue that cannot be ignored at any stage of the election process. However, the court found it unjust to maintain the interim bar on gazettement of the 1st Respondent, as this would prejudice the right to participate in the electoral process before a final determination is made. The court therefore lifted the bar on gazettement, allowing the electoral process to proceed, while directing the relevant state agencies to file responses and provide information within seven days. The court emphasized that it retains the power to issue appropriate orders before the...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders issued; bar on gazettement lifted; matter adjourned for further directions.

Orders

The bar on gazettement of the 1st Respondent is lifted.
The 4th, 5th, and 9th Respondents are granted seven days to file responses and submissions, including updates on processing the petitioners' requests for information.

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

61 paragraphs

Muka & another v Malala & 12 others; Commission for University Education & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Constitutional Petition E002 & E001 of 2022 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEHC 10062 (KLR) (27 June 2022) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 10062 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the High Court at Kakamega

Constitutional Petition E002 & E001 of 2022 (Consolidated)

PJO Otieno, J

June 27, 2022

(FORMELY NAIROBI CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. E264 OF 2022) IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 2(1), 2(4), 3(1), 10(1) & (2), 22(2) (b), 23,35,38,81(e), 88(4)(f) AND 165 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 AND IN THE MATTER OF CHAPTER 6 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 ON LEADERSHIP AND INTEGRITY AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 19,22,23&29 OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS ETHICS ACT NO. 4 OF 2003 AND IN THE MATTER OF 22(2) OF THE ELECTIONS ACT, 2012 NO. 24 OF 2011 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GUBERTNATORIAL ELECTIONS FOR KAKAMEGA COUNTY

Between

Fred Muka

Petitioner

and

Cleophas Wakhungu Malala

1st Respondent

Vice Chancellor United States International University

2nd Respondent

United States International University

3rd Respondent

Commission for University Education

4th Respondent

Kenya National Examinations Council

5th Respondent

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission

6th Respondent

Returning Officer, Kakamega County

7th Respondent

Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission

8th Respondent

Director of Criminal Investigations

9th Respondent

As consolidated with

Constitutional Petition E001 of 2022

Between

Frankline Shilingi Anguche

Petitioner

and

Malala Cleophas Wakhungu

1st Respondent

United States International University

2nd Respondent

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission

3rd Respondent

Joseph Ayatta-County Retirning Officer Kakamega

4th Respondent

and

Commission for University Education

Interested Party

Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission

Interested Party

Director of Criminal Investigations

Interested Party

Ruling

1. I am confronted with a number of constitutional considerations here. The first is the court’s duty to ensure that the law is complied with. There is then the right of the petitioners to be given a fair hearing together with the undoubted right of the 1st Respondent to contest the desired elective position.

2. To the court, whether or not the 1st Respondent qualifies to contest the gubernatorial position is such a threshold issue that cannot be treated casually unless one was to set on taking the law for granted.

3. I agree with Mr. Malala and Ashitiva that it is upon the duty bearers, being the 4th, 5th and 9th Respondents to provide basic answers to the question presented before the court here. To that list I would not exclude the 8th Respondent. It is for that reason that I think it would be a miss to order the matter to proceed without an input by the 4th, 5th and 9th Respondents.

4. For that reason I do accede to the request by Mr. Nyauma and do grant him a period of seven (7) days to file a response(s) which should include how far those Respondents have processed the Petitioners request for information.

5. Having said so, and reiterating that the question of legal qualification to contest is a threshold issue anchored in the constitution and which the court cannot turn a blind eye to at any time of the election process, I take the view that it should not be the only reason to hold the process by the 6th Respondent in preparing for credible elections. I take it that provided the court is able to conclude the petition before the election date, the 6th Respondent is able to comply with any orders/determinations issued by the court.

6. On that basis and reason, while I adjourn the matter at the instance of the Petitioners and the 4th, 5th and 9th Respondents, I do consider it just that I revisit my orders of 6. 6.2022 and lift the bar on gazettement. I consider that the only way to provide a level playing ground so that the 6th respondent proceeds with his mandate as the Petitioners pursue their rights to access justice while the 1st Respondent is not left to feel excluded from the elections before a final determination on the merits.

7. Let Mr. Nyauma file the responses within seven (7) days from today together with any submissions. Once served, all parties are given three (3) days to file any Supplementary Affidavits in response thereto.

8. Hearing on 11. 7.2022 at 2. 00 p.m.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2022. PATRICK J O OTIENOJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Okatch for the 2nd Petitioner (Petitioner in No. 2/2022)Mr. Otsyeno for Udoto for 1st PetitionerMr. Malalah for the 1st Respondent with Ms. MburuMr. Ashitiva with Ms. Maobe for the 2nd and 3rd RespondentsMr. Nyauma for the 4th, 5th & 9th RespondentsMr. Olendo for the 6th, 7th RespondentMs. Maobe holding brief for Yator for the 8th RespondentCourt Assistant: Kulubi

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.