[2013] KEHC 5195 (KLR)
The court found that the petitioner was not properly served with notice of the proceedings before the IEBC Tribunal, as the newspaper notice did not mention his name. This failure to effect proper service violated the petitioner's right to a fair hearing. Consequently, the court set aside the decision of the IEBC...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5195 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Nicodemus Ochieng; Respondent: The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission; Respondent: Orange Democratic Movement; Respondent: Peter Anyul Imwatok
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Petition 32 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Election Petition / Judgment
- Outcome
- Petition allowed; matter remitted for rehearing before the IEBC.
- Judges
- DAS Majanja, CC Kipkorir, GV Odunga
- Legal Topics
- Nomination Disputes, Service of Process, Electoral Tribunal Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nicodemus Ochieng
Petitioner
The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission
Respondent
Orange Democratic Movement
Respondent
Peter Anyul Imwatok
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner was properly served with notice of the proceedings before the IEBC Tribunal.
- 2 Whether the issuance of the nomination certificate to the 3rd respondent was valid in light of alleged irregularities.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the petitioner was not properly served with notice of the proceedings before the IEBC Tribunal, as the newspaper notice did not mention his name. This failure to effect proper service violated the petitioner's right to a fair hearing. Consequently, the court set aside the decision of the IEBC Tribunal and directed that the matter be reheard to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair administrative action.
Court Disposition
Petition allowed; matter remitted for rehearing before the IEBC.
Orders
- The decision of the IEBC Tribunal is set aside.
- The IEBC is directed to rehear the matter concerning the Makongeni Ward nomination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Petition 32 of 2013 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-ZA X-NONE X-NONE
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; text-align:justify; text-indent:-17. 85pt; line-height:200%; font-size:11. 0pt;"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]
NICODEMUS OCHIENG..................................................................................................PETITIONER
AND
THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORALAND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION...........1ST RESPONDENT
ORANGE DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT...............................................................2ND RESPONDENT
PETER ANYUL IMWATOK ...................................................................................3RD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. We heard this matter on 31st January 2013 and allowed the petition. We therefore directed the IEBC to rehear the matter. We now proffer the reasons for our decision.
2. The petitioner’s complaint is that he won the ODM nomination contest for the Makongeni Ward County Assembly Representative in the primaries held on 18th January 2013. His win was disputed by the 3rd respondent, Peter Onyul Imwatok.
3. The petitioner’s case was the subject of proceedings before the IEBC Tribunal and was determined on the basis that ODM conceded that elections were irregular and on that basis the 3rd respondent was issued with the nomination certificate.
4. The petitioner raised the issue that he was not properly served and on consideration of the material before us, we were so satisfied as the Notice issued in the newspaper, though it related to Makongeni ward, did not show the petitioner’s name. We therefore directed the matter be reheard.
DatedandDelivered at Nairobithis 5th February 2013
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE
W. KORIR
JUDGE
G. V. ODUNGA
JUDGE