Wilson Ong’ele Ochola v Orange Democratic Movement & 3 others
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal ruled Ochola was validly on the ballot as ODM's candidate, setting aside a High Court order that had de-gazetted him.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the PPDT, by accepting ODM's direct nomination of the appellant, had impermissibly sat on appeal from the High Court
The High Court erred; Onguto J. had appreciated that ODM's constitution provided for universal suffrage in specific areas, had left the PPDT decision of 31st May 2017 standing, and had only prohibited gazettement until the PPDT certified compliance - which the PPDT had done on 18th May 2017
The Court found that Lesiit J. misapprehended Onguto J's final order. That order directed ODM to nominate its candidate in accordance with its constitution, election and nomination rules, and prohibited IEBC from gazetting any nominee until ODM complied with the PPDT order of 31st May 2017 and the PPDT certified compliance. The PPDT's certification that ODM had duly complied meant the appellant's direct nomination did not offend the High Court's order, and the PPDT had not sat in appeal over it.
Validity of the appellant's nomination as ODM candidate for MCA, Utalii Ward
The appellant's name was validly on the ballot paper as the ODM candidate; the order directing the IEBC to de-gazette him was set aside
Because the impugned judgment rested on the erroneous finding that the PPDT had purported to appeal a High Court decision, its direction to de-gazette the appellant could not stand. Setting aside that judgment restored the validity of the appellant's nomination in time for the elections scheduled for 8th August 2017.
Legal principles established
#- A superior court order directing a party to proceed with nomination in accordance with its constitution and nomination rules leaves intact a prior valid PPDT decision, and a subsequent tribunal decision upholding compliance with such an order does not amount to an appeal from the High Court
- Where extreme urgency of an appeal so requires, the Court of Appeal may render judgment immediately and reserve the reasons to a later specified date
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is allowed
- 2.The judgment and decree of Lesiit, J. dated 1st August 2017 are set aside
- 3.Full reasons for the judgment were reserved to Friday, 22nd September 2017
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Election Petition No. 131 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court in an election-related dispute under the Court's appellate jurisdiction (specific enabling provision not stated in the judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wilson Ong’ele Ochola v Orange Democratic Movement & 3 others", Case Analysis (2017). Civil Appeal 271 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2017/283/eng@2017-08-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.