Ruwa & 2 others v Secretary, Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 9 others (Civil Appeal 9 of 2013) [2016] KECA 371 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that any honest member of the public can challenge rights violations in court, even without a personal stake.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Locus standi under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
The narrow common law standing requirements of personal and sufficient interest were overhauled by Articles 22, 258 and 260; the High Court erred in denying the appellants standing by focusing on their association with the defunct and unregistered MRC, and they ought to have been heard on the merits of their grievance.
Articles 22 and 258 begin with the phrase 'Every person has the right to institute court proceedings' and permit actions in one's own interest, on behalf of others, as a member of or in the interest of a group or class, in the public interest, or by an association for its members. Article 260 defines 'person' broadly. Decisions like Alfred Njau, Maathai and El Bussaidy reflect the old order; Mumo Matemo confirms the enlarged standing. The learned Judges ignored the appellants' depositions that they were former MRC officials acting for coastal residents and used the MRC draft constitution to deny them access to justice.
Power to strike out constitutional petitions
Contrary to the appellants' submission, the Gicheru Rules and the inherent jurisdiction of the court do permit striking out of constitutional petitions, and the Orderrule 2 principles of the Civil Procedure Rules apply by analogy; but the remedy is draconian and discretionary, and an appellate court will not interfere where exercised judicially.
The Gicheru Rules imposed timelines and contemplated striking out for frivolous or vexatious questions; the Mutunga Rules, made under Article 22(3), likewise empower the court to prevent abuse of process. However, striking out is a summary and draconian procedure reserved for plain cases, and where a petition alleges violation of constitutional rights the court must exercise even greater caution to avoid impeding access to justice. The exercise of discretion by the High Court here was improper.
Legal principles established
#- The strict common law rule of standing has been broadened by the Constitution of Kenya, 2010: any member of the public who is not a mere busy-body or meddlesome interloper and who acts in good faith has standing under Articles 22 and 258 to challenge violations of the Bill of Rights.
- Constitutional petitions and applications are amenable to the court's inherent power to strike out, but striking out is a draconian remedy to be used only in plain cases, and with even greater caution where a constitutional rights petition is at stake.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed
- 2.Ruling and order of the High Court of 20th December 2012 set aside
- 3.No orders as to costs
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Mombasa
- Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over an appeal from a five-judge bench of the High Court (Constitutional Application No. 6 of 2012); the judgment does not expressly cite the appellate jurisdiction provision.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mwadzoya v United States International University – Africa & another[2026] KEELRC 2559 (KLR)23 Sept 2026
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ruwa & 2 others v Secretary, Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 9 others (Civil Appeal 9 of 2013) [2016] KECA 371 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2013. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/371/eng@2016-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.