Kyalo Peter Kyulu v Wavinya Ndeti & 3 others [2017] KECA 444 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that the IEBC cannot reopen disputes already decided by the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal, ending a challenge to Wavinya Ndeti's nomination.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the IEBC Committee had jurisdiction to determine the complaint against Wavinya
The IEBC Committee wrongly exercised its powers by entertaining a complaint that in substance reopened issues already determined by the PPDT; its decision was irrational because it took into account irrelevant matters.
The Court agreed with the High Court that the issues before the IEBC Committee were substantially similar to those before the PPDT. Whereas the PPDT and IEBC both have jurisdiction over electoral disputes, their jurisdiction must be interpreted purposively so that neither tribunal is rendered redundant. Appeals from the PPDT lie to the High Court, not the IEBC; allowing the IEBC to determine issues already decided by the PPDT would elevate it into an appellate tribunal over the PPDT, contrary to judicial hierarchy and the statutory scheme.
Whether the learned judge erred in applying res judicata through inherent jurisdiction
The High Court properly exercised its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process by the IEBC Committee, notwithstanding that res judicata does not technically apply in judicial review.
While res judicata does not ordinarily apply to judicial review, the court could not ignore the PPDT's clear pronouncement on Wavinya's status nor sit back where a quasi-judicial body abuses its powers. The inherent power of the court is the essence of its judicial authority to ensure justice is done, and the judge had a responsibility to protect the purpose and principles of the Constitution without undue regard to technicalities.
Whether the learned judge exceeded judicial review jurisdiction by conducting a merit review
He did not; his examination of documents was confined to determining relevancy, and the IEBC Committee had taken into account irrelevant matters rendering its decision unreasonable.
The learned judge took into account only documents that were before the IEBC Committee. The examination was simply to determine the relevancy of documents submitted to the IEBC. The Committee did not properly direct itself regarding the CCU party list and took extraneous matters into account, so its decision was unreasonable; no merit review or appellate jurisdiction was exercised.
Whether the learned judge exhibited bias
No bias was established; the recusal ruling was not appealed and the proceedings revealed no grounds for a reasonable perception of bias.
An application for recusal had been dismissed in a considered ruling on 14th June 2017, and no appeal was filed against that ruling; both the notice of appeal and the appeal were against the judgment of 21st June 2017. The Court's perusal of the proceedings revealed no circumstances upon which a reasonable person could anchor a perception of bias.
Whether certiorari was properly granted despite the incomplete record
The order of certiorari was properly issued; the judge had the decision sought to be quashed and sufficient material, and the appellant failed to avail missing documents.
Although part of the record and materials before the IEBC were not submitted, the judge had the decision sought to be quashed and other material enabling determination of the application. The appellant had the opportunity to provide the missing documents but failed to do so, so the judge could not be faulted for issuing certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata does not apply in judicial review, but the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process by a quasi-judicial body reopening issues already determined by a competent tribunal.
- The IEBC Committee has no power to sit on appeal over or review decisions of the PPDT; a party aggrieved by a PPDT decision must appeal to the High Court.
- Judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal dismissed
- 2.Cross-appeal dismissed
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Judicial Review Misc. Appl. No. 301 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 41(2) of the Political Parties Act, 2011 (second appeal on matters of law only)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- County Government of Kakamega & 2 Others v The Salaries and Remuneration Commission[2018] KEHC 9880 (KLR)10 Dec 2018
- Fredrick Odhiambo Oyugi v Orange Democratic Movement & 2 others [2017] KECA 262 (KLR)[2017] KECA 262 (KLR)29 Sept 2017applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kyalo Peter Kyulu v Wavinya Ndeti & 3 others [2017] KECA 444 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Civil Appeal No. 193 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2017/444/eng@2017-07-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.