Cornel Rasanga Amoth v William Odhiambo Oduol & 2 others [2013] KECA 276 (KLR)

Articles 87(1) and 105 of the Constitution mandate timely resolution of electoral disputes; Parliament enacted the Elections Act and Rule 35 in fidelity to those provisions. Unlike its predecessor, the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act, the Elections Act deliberately omitted a right of appeal from interlocutory decisions. Section 80(3) vests interlocutory matters in the Election Court, which does not include the Court of Appeal. Allowing interlocutory appeals would defeat the constitutional objective of expeditious dispute resolution within six months.

The section does not define 'decision' and does not expressly cover interlocutory orders. It must be read contextually with Section 80(3) and the constitutional timelines. The Ugandan Court of Appeal's construction of the analogous Section 66(1) of the Uganda Parliamentary Election Act, refusing to read in a right of appeal against interlocutory decisions, is of persuasive value because the two provisions are in pari materia.

Rules formulated under the Elections Act are in consonance with the Supreme Law. The Constitution 2010 was promulgated precisely because electoral disputes historically took inordinately long; strict timelines are embedded in Articles 105(2) and 87(1). A rule restricting appeals to final judgments serves rather than offends that objective.

In Matiba, the court found the appeal was not from a decision on the validity of Moi's election but on the competence of the petition itself, which was appealable under the then constitutional scheme. Here, the order refusing scrutiny concerns the validity of the election. Further, the 2010 Constitution's timelines were absent in the old regime, so the reasoning does not carry over.