Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Supreme CourtStruck OutPetition 2 of 2013

Aluochier v Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission (Iebc) And 19 Others

Supreme Court of Kenya
27 February 2013
235 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya LawDownload the judgment (PDF) Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Supreme Court cannot hear election petitions before it gains jurisdiction at the proper stage.

What this practically means

#

The Supreme Court of Kenya ruled that it could not hear a petition about the 2013 presidential election because it lacked jurisdiction at that time. The court had to first determine whether it had the legal power to hear the case. After hearing arguments, it decided it did not have that power at that stage, so it declined to hear the petition. The court reserved its full reasons for later.

Executive summary

#
This is a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court of Kenya on a petition filed by Raila Amolo Odinga against the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and three others, concerning a Presidential election. The Court heard submissions from counsel on the scope of its jurisdiction, the governing rules for Presidential elections, an Advisory Opinion from 2012, and the powers of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission. After considering all submissions, the Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition at this stage. Consequently, the Court declined to hear the petition and reserved its reasons for the decision, to be delivered on 27th March 2013, under Rule 20(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012. No order as to costs was made. The ruling was delivered on 27th February 2013 by a two-judge bench consisting of M.K. Ibrahim and J.B. Ojwang, Judges of the Supreme Court.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition at this stage

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the petition at this stage

Holding

The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition at this stage.

Reasoning

The Court considered submissions on the scope of its jurisdiction, governing rules relating to Presidential elections, an Advisory Opinion from 2012, and the powers of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission. After taking all submissions into account, it became clear that the Court lacked jurisdiction at this stage, leading to the decision to decline to hear the petition.

Legal principles established

#
  • The Supreme Court must decline to hear a petition if it lacks jurisdiction at the relevant stage.
  • Jurisdiction is a threshold issue that must be determined before proceeding to the merits of a case.
  • The court's jurisdiction is defined by the Constitution and governing rules, not by the parties' wishes.
  • The court may rely on advisory opinions and submissions to determine its jurisdiction.
  • A court may reserve its reasons for a decision and deliver them later under procedural rules.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Court declines to hear the petition for lack of jurisdiction
  2. 2.No order as to costs

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority
majority
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 163(3)(a) of the Constitution

Relief refused

#

Entertainment of the petition on its merits

Lack of jurisdiction

Costs

We make no order as to costs

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

the Supreme Court, at this stage, lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition, which we hereby decline to hear
p. 1 Jurisdiction
We make no order as to costs
p. 1 Costs order

Key timeline

#
2013-02-27
Supreme Court delivers ruling declining to hear the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
2013-03-27
Supreme Court delivers reserved reasons for the ruling under Rule 20(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012.

Practical implications

#
For lawyers

File petitions only when jurisdiction is clear

Lawyers must ensure that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction at the time of filing an election petition. This ruling confirms that the court will not hesitate to strike out a petition if it is filed prematurely. Before filing, carefully review the constitutional and statutory provisions that grant the court jurisdiction at each stage of the election process.

For businesses

Election outcomes remain uncertain until court acts

Businesses relying on stable political conditions should note that the Supreme Court can delay hearing election challenges if it lacks jurisdiction. This ruling shows that procedural hurdles can postpone final resolution of election disputes, prolonging uncertainty. Companies should plan for possible delays in the electoral cycle when making investment decisions.

For individuals

Courts must have power to hear your case

If you want to challenge a presidential election result, you must file your petition at the correct time and before the correct court. The Supreme Court cannot hear your case simply because you ask it to. The court must first have legal authority over the matter. Always consult a lawyer to confirm the court has jurisdiction before filing.

Frequently asked questions

#
Why did the Supreme Court of Kenya refuse to hear Raila Odinga's 2013 election petition?+

The Supreme Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction at that stage of the proceedings. After hearing arguments, the court decided it lacked the legal power to entertain the petition, so it declined to hear it and reserved its reasons for later.

What does it mean when a court lacks jurisdiction in Kenya?+

Jurisdiction is the legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. If a court lacks jurisdiction, it cannot proceed with the case, no matter how important the issues are. The case must be filed in the correct court at the right time.

Can the Supreme Court of Kenya hear any presidential election petition at any time?+

No. The Supreme Court can only hear presidential election petitions during specific stages defined by the Constitution and election laws. This ruling shows that the court will not hear a petition if it is filed before the court has jurisdiction.

What happens to an election petition if the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction in Kenya?+

The court will decline to hear the petition and may dismiss it or strike it out. The petitioner may need to refile later if jurisdiction becomes available, or pursue other legal remedies. The court may also reserve its reasons for the decision.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Aluochier v Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission (Iebc) And 19 Others", Case Analysis (2013). Petition 2 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2013/18/eng@2013-02-27

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.