Esther M. Passaris v The Registrar of Political Parties

The court held that section 3 of the Act, read with Part II of the First Schedule, prohibits use of specified names including 'Harambee' in activities wide enough to cover political parties. The prohibition is not absolute since the Minister may grant written permission, but the appellant never sought it. That omission was fatal to her application and her successive challenges before the Tribunal, High Court and Court of Appeal.

Article 91 deals with national character, democratically elected governing bodies, and prohibitions on religious, ethnic or regional foundations. These matters cannot be assessed at the name-reservation stage. Neither the Tribunal nor the High Court determined Article 91's relevance, but the Court of Appeal found the Registrar misapplied it, though this did not render the rejection unlawful given the statutory bar on the name itself.

Article 38 guarantees political choices including forming a party, but Article 92 enjoins legislation regulating parties, and Article 24 permits limitation by law where reasonable and justifiable. The National Flag, Emblems and Names Act is such a law. Article 37 (assembly, demonstration, picketing) was irrelevant to the dispute. The limitation affected only the choice of the party's name, not the right itself.

The court noted the absence of a statutory name-reservation mechanism comparable to section 48 of the Companies Act. The Registrar instead directs promoters through 'A Guide to Political Parties Registration' to seek a name search, considered against section 8 criteria such as obscenity, excessive length or resemblance to existing names. The choice of a party name, like a natural person's name, is a delicate, meaningful decision.