Aramat & another v Lempaka & 3 others
The bottom line
#Election petitions must be filed within 28 days or the court has no power to hear them.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had no authority to hear an election petition filed 36 days after the results, because the Constitution gives only 28 days. That deadline is a strict rule that cannot be extended. The Court of Appeal wrongly ordered a recount after the six-month limit. The Supreme Court restored the original election result and said each party pays its own costs.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether these proceedings were a nullity ab initio, having been premised on a petition filed out of time at the High Court
- 2.whether the Judges of Appeal erred in law, in extending the jurisdiction of the High Court contrary to Articles 105(1) and (2) of the Constitution
- 3.whether the Judges of Appeal erred in law, when they attributed the status of an 'Election Court' to any Judge, for purposes of complying with Section 80(4) of the Elections Act
- 4.whether the Judges of Appeal erred, when they held that a petition filed under Section 80(4) of the Elections Act and Rule 32 of the Election Petition Rules can be disposed of summarily without a trial, thus upholding a position contrary to Articles 25(c) and 50(1) of the Constitution
Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court proceedings were a nullity ab initio because the election petition was filed out of time.
The High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition because it was filed 36 days after the declaration of results, contrary to the 28-day requirement in Article 87(2) of the Constitution. The proceedings were therefore a nullity ab initio.
The Court held that the constitutional timeline of 28 days for filing election petitions is a jurisdictional requirement, not a mere procedural formality. Relying on its decisions in Hassan Ali Joho and Mary Wambui Munene, the Court found that Section 76(1)(a) of the Elections Act, which had extended the time to publication in the Gazette, had been declared unconstitutional retrospectively. Since the petition was filed on 10th April 2013, 36 days after the declaration of results on 4th March 2013, it fell outside the 28-day period. The Court emphasized that the Constitution links jurisdiction to timelines in electoral disputes, and non-compliance renders the proceedings void. The argument that this issue was not pleaded was rejected because jurisdiction is a fundamental question that can be raised at any time, even by the court suo motu.
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering the High Court to conduct a recount after the six-month period under Article 105(2) had lapsed.
The Court of Appeal erred because the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 105(2) was exhausted upon delivery of its judgment on 5th September 2013, and the appellate court could not revive it.
The Court interpreted Article 105(2) as imposing a mandatory timeline that goes to the jurisdiction of the High Court. Once the six-month period from the date of lodging the petition expired, the High Court became functus officio. The Court of Appeal's order directing the High Court to conduct a recount after this period was an attempt to extend the High Court's jurisdiction, which was impermissible. The Court distinguished the general Appellate Jurisdiction Act from the special electoral dispute regime, holding that the Constitution and the Elections Act are the foundation of that regime and cannot be overridden by general legislation. The Court also rejected the argument that Article 105(2) deals only with timelines and not jurisdiction, stating that the prescribed timelines inherently subsume jurisdiction.
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and to determine issues of merit after finding that the lower courts lacked jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) to hear the appeal, and it has the authority to resolve all constitutional questions arising from the matter, including issues of merit, even where the lower courts lacked jurisdiction.
The Court held that its jurisdiction is broader than that of the lower courts and flows from the Constitution itself. It is not constrained by the 'Lillian S' principle in the same way as the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court's mandate under Article 163(7) and Section 3 of the Supreme Court Act requires it to provide authoritative interpretation of the Constitution and to develop rich jurisprudence. The Court reasoned that it has an inherent obligation to conclude the contest by determining the deserts of the parties and to provide overall direction in the interpretation and application of the law. The Court cited its earlier decisions in Jasbir Singh Rai and the concurring opinions in Anami Silverse Lisamula to support the view that it should take every opportunity to pronounce on constitutional issues.
Legal principles established
#- The 28-day filing deadline for election petitions is a jurisdictional requirement, not just a procedural step.
- Proceedings started outside the 28-day period are void from the beginning.
- The Court of Appeal cannot order the High Court to conduct a recount after the six-month constitutional limit expires.
- The Supreme Court has broader jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues even if lower courts lacked jurisdiction.
Court orders
#- 1.The appellate Court's Judgment of 28th March, 2014 is annulled.
- 2.The 3rd respondent's Gazette Notice No. 3155 of 15th March, 2014 declaring the appellant herein as the duly-elected Member of Parliament for Narok East, is reinstated and sustained.
- 3.At all stages of the cause – in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court – each party shall bear his or its own costs.
The bench
#Judges wrote separately. A dissent does not bind; a concurrence may narrow the ratio.
Wrote the judgment
Ibrahim SCJ dissented from the majority's decision to proceed to determine other issues on merit after finding the proceedings were a nullity. He held that the Court should have downed its tools upon finding the High Court lacked jurisdiction, and that delving into other questions was a departure from precedent without justification.
With much respect and deference, I would disagree with my brothers and sisters in the majority when they did not rest the matter at this point and went ahead to entertain consideration of other issues on merit.p. 43
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya
- Civil Appeal No. 31 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
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 appellate Court's Judgment of 28th March, 2014 is annulled.
The 3rd respondent's Gazette Notice No. 3155 of 15th March, 2014 declaring the appellant herein as the duly-elected Member of Parliament for Narok East, is reinstated and sustained.
At all stages of the cause – in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court – each party shall bear his or its own costs.
The clear import of the prescribed timelines, within which to determine electoral disputes, is that they inherently and compellingly subsume jurisdiction.
Those who filed election petitions outside the 28-day requirement of the Constitution cannot, in our perception, avoid the consequence of their dilatoriness; for it is the prescribed time-frame, that opens the jurisdiction of the Courts.
The appellate Court cannot confer upon itself powers to resurrect the jurisdiction of Election Courts, after such jurisdiction is exhausted under the law.
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction in relation to electoral disputes is, in our opinion, broader than that of the other superior Courts.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Strict compliance with filing deadlines
This ruling confirms that the 28-day deadline under Article 87(2) is jurisdictional. Any petition filed after that period is a nullity, regardless of the merits. Lawyers must calendar the exact date of declaration of results and file within 28 days. Do not rely on the Gazette notice date; the constitutional timeline starts from the declaration of results.
Certainty in election outcomes
Businesses can rely on election results once the 28-day filing window closes without a petition. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces that delayed challenges are invalid, reducing prolonged uncertainty. This stability benefits investment and planning, especially in constituencies where business operations depend on political leadership.
Know your rights and deadlines
If you want to challenge an election result, you must file your petition within 28 days from the declaration of results. Missing this deadline means the court has no power to hear your case. The six-month period for the court to decide also cannot be extended. Act quickly or lose your chance.
Frequently asked questions
#What happens if an election petition is filed late in Kenya?+
The court has no jurisdiction to hear it. The petition is void from the start. The Constitution requires all election petitions to be filed within 28 days of the declaration of results. Missing this deadline kills the case, no matter how strong the evidence.
Can the Court of Appeal order a recount after six months in Kenya?+
No. The High Court loses jurisdiction to conduct a recount once six months from lodging the petition pass. The Court of Appeal cannot revive that expired power. The Supreme Court confirmed this in the Kiyiapi case, stopping the appeal court from extending the High Court's authority.
What is the 28-day rule for election petitions in Kenya?+
Article 87(2) of the Constitution gives a person 28 days from the declaration of election results to file a petition at the High Court. This is a strict deadline that goes to the court's power to hear the case. Filing even one day late means the court cannot entertain the petition.
Does the Supreme Court have power to hear a case even if lower courts had no jurisdiction in Kenya?+
Yes. The Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) is broader than that of lower courts. It can decide constitutional issues even if the High Court and Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction. The Kiyiapi case allowed the Supreme Court to resolve the matter fully despite the lower courts' jurisdictional flaws.
Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission v Attorney General[2025] KESC 57 (KLR)5 Sept 2025explained
- National Hospital Insurance Fund Management Board v Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers & another; Attorney General (Interested Party)[2025] KESC 37 (KLR)30 May 2025followed
- Julius v Chief Registrar of the Judiciary & 14 others[2025] KESC 7 (KLR)14 Mar 2025followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Aramat & another v Lempaka & 3 others", Case Analysis (2014). Petition 5 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2014/21/eng@2014-08-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.