Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateStruck OutElection Petition No. 3 of 2017· [2017] KEMC 67 (KLR)

Zeynab Allyow Issack v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others [2017] KEMC 67 (KLR)

Election Court (Marsabit)
1 December 2017
2,432 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The court threw out a challenge to a Marsabit County Assembly nomination because it was filed 48 days late, far past Kenya's strict 28-day election petition deadline.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, Zeynab Allyow Issack, petitioned against her exclusion from nomination as a member of the Marsabit County Assembly through the party list, seeking an order nullifying the nomination of the 3rd Respondent and an order that she be nominated instead. The 3rd Respondent raised a preliminary objection attacking the petition on four fronts: that it was filed out of time; that the orders sought were not provided for in Rule 7 of the 2017 Petitions Rules; that no proper service was effected; and that the petition did not conform to the prescribed form and content. The court framed four issues accordingly. It found that the gazette notice nominating the 3rd Respondent was issued on 28/8/2017 and the petition, filed on 16/10/2017, came about 48 days later, well outside the mandatory 28-day period under Article 87(2) of the Constitution and Section 76(1)(a) of the Elections Act, and that Rule 19(2) excludes extension of that period; the petition was therefore incompetent and the court lacked jurisdiction. On the second issue, the court held it did have power to grant the orders sought, as Rule 7 does not prescribe allowable orders and Rule 8(3) is not exhaustive. On service, the Petitioner did not contest the claim; the court found no proper service was effected, which was fatal, mere knowledge of the petition not curing the want of service. Finally, the petition omitted the gazette notice and its date, making it deficient in form and content. Allowing the preliminary objection, the court struck out the petition with costs to the 3rd Respondent, capped at Kshs 50,000/= excluding disbursements, dated and delivered at Marsabit on 1 December 2017.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petition was filed out of time and the effect thereof

Holding

The petition was filed about 48 days after the gazette notice of 28/8/2017 and was therefore out of time, depriving the court of jurisdiction

Reasoning

Article 87(2) of the Constitution and Section 76(1)(a) of the Elections Act require an election petition to be filed within 28 days of declaration of results, which for a nominated member is the gazettement of the party nomination list. The gazette notice was issued on 28/8/2017 and the petition filed 16/10/2017, about 48 days later. The timelines are mandatory; Rule 19(2) of the 2017 Rules expressly excludes extension of the filing period, and the Supreme Court has affirmed such petitions are nullities.

p. 3
02

Whether the court has power to grant the orders sought although not provided for in Rule 7 of the Petitions Rules

Holding

The court has power to grant such orders; Rule 7 does not prescribe the orders the court may grant and Rule 8(3) is not exhaustive on the particulars of relief

Reasoning

The 3rd Respondent argued the orders sought were not provided for under Rule 7 and would violate the 3rd Respondent's rights under Article 38. The court held the rule does not prescribe the orders a court may grant, and Rule 8(3) is not exhaustive of the particulars of relief a petitioner may seek. This ground of the preliminary objection therefore failed.

p. 4
03

Whether proper service was effected on the 3rd Respondent and the effect thereof

Holding

No proper service was effected, offending Article 87(3), Section 77(2) of the Elections Act and Rule 10; the failure is fatal

Reasoning

The Petitioner did not respond to the claim that no proper service was effected, which ought to have been done within 15 days. The court found that although the 3rd Respondent came to know of the petition through the registry, such knowledge could not cure want of service, following Patrick Ngeta Kimanzi. The failure to serve goes to the core of fair hearing and is fatal to the petition.

p. 4
04

Whether the petition meets the prescribed format and content for election petitions

Holding

The petition was deficient in form and content, which deficiency is fatal

Reasoning

Rule 8 of the 2017 Rules prescribes mandatory contents, including the date of declaration of results. The petition did not indicate the gazette notice through which the 3rd Respondent was nominated, nor the date of the gazette notice, which is equivalent to the date of declaration of the election results. The court therefore held the petition deficient in the form and content required of an election petition, and that the deficiency was fatal.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Election petitions must be filed within the constitutionally and statutorily prescribed timeframe, and those timelines are inflexible and inextensible
  • The gazette notice of nomination marks the start of the 28-day period for filing a petition challenging a nomination
  • Service of an election petition is a mandatory requirement whose breach is fatal; mere knowledge of the petition does not cure want of service

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection of the 3rd Respondent is allowed
  2. 2.The Election Petition is struck out
  3. 3.Costs to the 3rd Respondent, capped at Kshs 50,000/= excluding disbursements, which must be proved by way of receipts

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 38
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 87(2)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 87(3)
  • Elections Act, No. 24 of 2011Section 36
  • Elections Act, No. 24 of 2011Section 75(1)(a)
  • Elections Act, No. 24 of 2011Section 76(1)(a)
  • Elections Act, No. 24 of 2011Section 77 and 77(2)
  • Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017Rule 7
  • Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017Rule 8 (including 8(3))
  • Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017Rule 10
  • Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017Rule 19(1) and (2)

Cases cited (4)

  • Moses Mwicigi and 14 others -V- Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and 5 others
    (2016) eKLR
  • Anami Silverse Lisamula – VS – Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and 3 others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Lemanken Aramat –v- Harun Meitamei Lempaka & 2 Others
    Supreme Court Petition No. 5 of 2014
  • Patrick Ngeta Kimanzi –v- Marcus Mutua Muluvi & 2 Others
    Election Petition (Machakos) No. 8 of 2013
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 87 of the Constitution; Sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Elections Act; Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Zeynab Allyow Issack v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others [2017] KEMC 67 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Election Petition No. 3 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2017/67/eng@2017-12-01

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.