Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistrateDismissedElection Petition No. 6 of 2017 (originally Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2017)· [2018] KEMC 28 (KLR)

In the Matter of Violation of the Non Inclusion of the persons with Disabilities in the Kisii County Assmebly [2018] KEMC 28 (KLR)

Chief Magistrate's Court at Kisii (sitting as an Election Court)
23 February 2018
4,377 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Kisii election court upheld a county assembly nominee's appointment, ruling that party lists must be taken as submitted and nominees need not be local registered voters.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioner, a Jubilee party aspirant listed third under the youth category, challenged the nomination and gazettement of the 4th respondent as a nominated member of the Kisii County Assembly under the marginalized category. He sought revocation of Gazette Notice No. 8380 of 28th August 2017, a declaration that the Kisii County Assembly was unconstitutionally constituted for lack of persons with disabilities and minorities, and an order that the 4th respondent prove he was a marginalized person and a Kisii resident. Originally filed as a constitutional petition in the High Court, it was deemed an election petition because the gazetted members had already assumed office, and the magistrate was gazetted as an election court. The respondents argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the petitioner had not exhausted internal dispute resolution or IEBC mechanisms, and that the IEBC had merely gazetted the first-priority name on the Jubilee list as required by section 36(8) of the Elections Act. The court held the petition was properly an election petition, deemed the 5th respondent's late response properly filed, and found it had jurisdiction. On the merits it held the nomination was valid: the IEBC could not re-arrange the party list, the petitioner and 4th respondent were in different nomination categories, and voter registration in Kisii county was not a nomination requirement. The petition was dismissed in its entirety with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Character of the petition - election petition or constitutional petition

Holding

The petition qualifies as an election petition because the gazetted nominee had already assumed office

Reasoning

The High Court had directed that since the petition challenged a county assembly party list and the members had already assumed office, it be deemed an election petition. The magistrate was gazetted as an election court, and the court confined itself to the party list nomination dispute, declining to address prayers involving constitutional interpretation reserved to the High Court under Article 165(1)(d).

p. 6
02

Jurisdiction of the court to hear the dispute

Holding

The court had jurisdiction as an election court notwithstanding the IEBC's constitutional mandate over nomination disputes

Reasoning

Following the decision in Kisii CMCC Election Petition 9 of 2017 and National Gender and Equality Commission v IEBC, once the gazetted nominee had assumed office the proper forum was an election petition, not the IEBC dispute resolution mechanisms. The court therefore held it was vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition.

p. 7
03

Validity of the 4th respondent's nomination and gazettement

Holding

The nomination and gazettement complied with Article 177(1)(c), section 36(8) of the Elections Act and Regulations 54, 55 and 56

Reasoning

The Jubilee party list placed the 4th respondent first under the marginalized category while the petitioner was third under the youth category, so there were no competing interests between the two. The IEBC could not re-arrange the list and merely gazetted the first-priority name as required by section 36(8).

p. 8
04

Whether the 4th respondent needed to be a registered voter in Kisii county

Holding

No such requirement exists in Article 193 or the nomination regulations

Reasoning

The court examined Article 193(1) of the Constitution and Regulation 15 of the Election (Party Primaries and Party Lists) Regulations 2017 and found no requirement that a nominee be a registered voter in the county of nomination; it sufficed that he was a registered voter at the time of nomination.

p. 8
05

Late filing of the 5th respondent's response and replying affidavit

Holding

The court exercised discretion to deem the documents properly on record

Reasoning

The response and replying affidavit were filed after pre-trial directions. The court, invoking section 80 of the Elections Act, Rules 5(1), 11(1) and 19(1), and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, enlarged time and deemed them properly filed, noting Rule 11(1) allows a response within 7 days and the rule confers discretion to enlarge time.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Where persons included in a party list have assumed the relevant office, their nomination can only be challenged by way of an election petition, not a constitutional petition
  • The IEBC has no power to re-arrange the priority order of names on a party list submitted to it
  • Registration as a voter in the specific county is not a prerequisite for nomination to a county assembly

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition is dismissed in its entirety
  2. 2.Gazette Notice No. 8380 dated 28th August 2017 is declared valid
  3. 3.The 4th respondent was duly nominated as a member of the county assembly of Kisii under the category of marginalized group
  4. 4.Each party to bear its own costs of the petition
Jurisdiction invoked
Constituted as an election court by Gazette Notice No. 12539 dated 19th December 2017 pursuant to an order of the High Court deeming the petition an election petition; jurisdiction under the Constitution and the Elections Act, 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "In the Matter of Violation of the Non Inclusion of the persons with Disabilities in the Kisii County Assmebly [2018] KEMC 28 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Election Petition No. 6 of 2017 (originally Constitutional Petition No. 6 of 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2018/28/eng@2018-02-23

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