[2013] KEHC 3039 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 3039 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants were not parties to the previous proceedings upon which the Committee relied to substitute their names from the party list. As such, the Committee's reliance on those decisions, which directly affected the applicants without affording them an opportunity to be heard, was unfair...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 3039 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission; Respondent: United Republican Party; Respondent: Monica Chebet; Applicant: Maria Kopito; Applicant: Naingu Taki; Respondent: Mary Chelagat; Respondent: Monicah Chebet Too
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review 238 & 153 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
applications allowed; committee decisions set aside; matters remitted for fresh hearing
Legal Topics
Party List Nominations, Electoral Dispute Resolution, Procedural Fairness, Committee Decision Review
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Election Petitions Party List Nominations Electoral Dispute Resolution Procedural Fairness Committee Decision 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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission

Respondent

United Republican Party

Respondent

Monica Chebet

Respondent

Maria Kopito

Applicant

Naingu Taki

Applicant

Mary Chelagat

Respondent

Monicah Chebet Too

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the IEBC Dispute Resolution Committee erred in substituting the applicants' names from the party list without affording them a hearing.
  2. 2 Whether reliance on previous decisions in which the applicants were not parties violated the applicants' right to fair administrative action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were not parties to the previous proceedings upon which the Committee relied to substitute their names from the party list. As such, the Committee's reliance on those decisions, which directly affected the applicants without affording them an opportunity to be heard, was unfair and contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair administrative action. The court held that the applicants' right to be heard was violated, and that the Committee should have given them a chance to participate in the proceedings before making a decision that adversely affected their interests. Consequently, the court set aside the Committee's decisions and directed that...

Court Disposition

applications allowed; committee decisions set aside; matters remitted for fresh hearing

Orders

  • The decisions in Complaints Nos. 512/2013, 574/2013, 209/2013 and 217/2013 are set aside.
  • The Committee is directed to hear the matters afresh within 14 days from the date hereof.