[2013] KEHC 5171 (KLR)
The court found that the application was based on the same facts as previously adjudicated both by the IEBC Dispute Resolution Committee and by the High Court in Misc. Appl. No. 39 of 2013. No new evidence or grounds were presented to justify a rehearing or to warrant interference with the Committee's decision. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5171 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Steve Mutuku Mutua; Respondent: James Mutiso Mutua; Respondent: The National Alliance; Respondent: The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 45 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Judgment
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- DAS Majanja
- Legal Topics
- Party Nominations, Electoral Disputes, Judicial Review 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
Steve Mutuku Mutua
Applicant
James Mutiso Mutua
Respondent
The National Alliance
Respondent
The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a rehearing of his case regarding the party nomination process for Yatta Constituency.
- 2 Whether there are new facts or grounds to warrant interference with the IEBC Dispute Resolution Committee's decision.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was based on the same facts as previously adjudicated both by the IEBC Dispute Resolution Committee and by the High Court in Misc. Appl. No. 39 of 2013. No new evidence or grounds were presented to justify a rehearing or to warrant interference with the Committee's decision. The court emphasized that judicial review is not an avenue for rehearing matters already determined unless new facts emerge. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts)
Judicial Review 45 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]
STEVE MUTUKU MUTUA ................................................................................................APPLICANT
AND
JAMES MUTISO MUTUA.....................................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE.................................................................................2ND RESPONDENT
THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORALAND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION.......3RD RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
1. Steven Mutuku Mutua moves the court once again to seek orders by way of Notice of Motion filed on 7th February 2013. In essence he seeks a rehearing of his case.He was a candidate for the position of Member of National Assembly for Yatta Constituency on a TNA Ticket. He alleged serious irregularities in the conduct of the nomination on 17th and 18th January 2013. As he had lost the nomination, he lodged an appeal to the IEBC Dispute Resolution Committee. The Committee in NDRC No. 106 of 2013, decided the case against him by dismissing the complaint on the basis of insufficient evidence.
2. The applicant then lodged an application before this court, to wit Misc. Appl. No. 39 of 2013. We heard the matter and it was dismissed on 1st February 2013. The reasons for the decision were that, we found no grounds to interfere with the Committee’s decision.
3. This case is based on the same facts. Nothing new has emerged and it is with profound sympathy to the applicant that I must dismiss the application. No order as to costs.
DatedandDelivered at Nairobithis 7th February 2013.
D.S. MAJANJA
JUDGE