[2017] KEHC 3205 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 3205 (KLR)

The court found that while the applicant's apprehension regarding the security of the ballot boxes was understandable, there was no tangible evidence presented to show an immediate risk of tampering if the application was served on the respondents. The constitutional and statutory mandate of the 1st and 2nd...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 3205 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Silas Muriuki Ruteere; Respondent: Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission; Respondent: Abdi Shiekh Mohamed/Returning Officer for Imenti Constituency; Respondent: Abdul Rahim Dawood
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Election Petition 1 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Interlocutory Application (ex Parte Motion)
Outcome
Application for ex-parte orders declined; matter to proceed inter partes.
Judges
A Mabeya
Legal Topics
Preservation of Election Materials, Ex Parte Orders, Ballot Box Security, Recount Procedures
Source Language
en
Election Petitions Preservation of Election Materials Ex Parte Orders Ballot Box Security Recount Procedures

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Silas Muriuki Ruteere

Applicant

Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission

Respondent

Abdi Shiekh Mohamed/Returning Officer for Imenti Constituency

Respondent

Abdul Rahim Dawood

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Interlocutory Application (ex Parte Motion)

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an ex-parte order to put additional seals on all ballot boxes for North Imenti Constituency.
  2. 2 Whether there is sufficient risk of tampering with ballot boxes to justify ex-parte relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicant's apprehension regarding the security of the ballot boxes was understandable, there was no tangible evidence presented to show an immediate risk of tampering if the application was served on the respondents. The constitutional and statutory mandate of the 1st and 2nd respondents to preserve election materials was noted. The court held that, absent evidence of imminent risk, it would not be appropriate to grant the order ex-parte. The application was therefore to be served on the respondents for inter partes hearing.

Court Disposition

Application for ex-parte orders declined; matter to proceed inter partes.

Orders

  • Application to be served upon the 1st and 2nd Respondents forthwith.
  • Hearing inter partes scheduled for 6th September, 2017 at 10:30 a.m.