Lemanken Aramat v Harun Meitamei Lempanka & 2 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court can halt a recount if the appeal raises serious constitutional questions.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court of Kenya stopped a recount order from the Court of Appeal in an election dispute. The Court said it has the power to hear the appeal because the lower courts were interpreting election laws that come from the Constitution. The stay prevents wasting time and money while the main appeal is heard.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Application and to admit the appeal under article 163(4) (a).
- 2.Whether the Application raises sufficient grounds to warrant grant of interlocutory orders sought.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) to hear an appeal from the Court of Appeal in an election petition where the Court of Appeal interpreted the Elections Act and Rules, but not specific constitutional provisions.
The Court has jurisdiction because the Court of Appeal's reasoning took a trajectory of constitutional interpretation or application, as the Elections Act and Rules are normative derivatives of constitutional principles.
The Court reviewed the record and found that both the High Court and Court of Appeal had before them electoral disputes raising concerns of compliance with constitutional principles under Articles 38, 81, 82, 86, 87(1), and 105. The Court applied the test from the Munya case, which requires that the Court's reasoning and conclusions, put in context, can properly be said to have taken a trajectory of constitutional interpretation or application. The Court found that the appellant had demonstrated this, as the Court of Appeal was interpreting provisions meant to give effect to constitutional articles. The Court rejected the 1st respondent's argument that no constitutional issues were determined, noting that the Elections Act and Regulations are normative derivatives of constitutional principles.
Whether the applicant has made out a case for grant of stay of execution of the Court of Appeal's orders pending appeal.
The applicant has satisfied all three grounds for stay: the appeal is arguable, it would be rendered nugatory without a stay, and it is in the public interest to grant the stay.
The Court identified several weighty constitutional questions raised by the appeal, including whether a recount is a matter of right, whether the Court of Appeal can confer electoral jurisdiction on the High Court after it has pronounced a verdict, and whether the Court of Appeal properly interpreted Articles 87(1) and 105. The Court found that if the recount proceeded and the appeal later succeeded, the appeal would be rendered nugatory because the recount would determine the winner and a declaration would be made. On public interest, the Court noted that the electorate has a stake in the ultimate determination, and that public funds should not be wasted on a recount while the appeal is pending.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal to the Supreme Court is proper if the Court of Appeal's reasoning involved constitutional interpretation, even without citing specific articles.
- Election laws and rules are derived from constitutional principles, so courts must interpret them in line with the Constitution.
- A coordinated bench of the Supreme Court cannot overturn a previous decision of the Court; only an enlarged bench can review it.
- To grant a stay, the applicant must show the appeal is arguable, would be useless without a stay, and the public interest favors the stay.
- The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear election petition appeals where lower courts interpreted electoral laws as constitutional derivatives.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion of 3rd April, 2014 is allowed.
- 2.The 1st Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection of 8th April, 2014 is disallowed.
- 3.A stay of execution of the Judgment and consequential Orders of the Court of Appeal sitting at Nairobi in Civil Appeal No. 276 of 2013 of 28th March 2014 be and is hereby stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
- 4.Costs shall be in the cause.
- 5.The parties to appear before the Registrar on 16th May 2014 at 10.00 am with a view to making arrangements for the hearing and disposal of the appeal on a priority basis.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Civil Appeal No. 276 of 2013
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
A stay of execution of the Judgment and consequential Orders of the Court of Appeal sitting at Nairobi in Civil Appeal No. 276 of 2013 of 28th March 2014 be and is hereby stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
where specific constitutional provisions cannot be identified as having formed the gist of the cause at the Court of Appeal, the very least an appellant should demonstrate is that the Court's reasoning, and the conclusions which led to the determination of the issue, put in context, can properly be said to have taken a trajectory of constitutional interpretation or application
the Elections Act, and the Regulations thereunder, are normative derivatives of the principles embodied in Articles 81 and 86 of the Constitution, and that in interpreting them, a Court of law cannot disengage from the Constitution
We take due notice that Munya was a two judge bench decision of this Court which we as another coordinate bench has no power to review or vary.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Framing appeals for Supreme Court
When appealing election petition rulings, emphasize how the Court of Appeal's reasoning engaged constitutional interpretation, even if it didn't cite specific articles. For stay applications, explicitly argue that the appeal is arguable, would be rendered nugatory without a stay, and that public interest supports the order.
Impact on election-related contracts
Businesses involved in election logistics (e.g., printing, transport) should note that electoral laws are rooted in constitutional principles. Court rulings on recounts or petitions can delay or alter contracts. Stay orders can freeze activities, so plan for potential litigation delays and include flexible timelines in contracts.
Rights during election disputes
If you are a candidate in an election petition, the Supreme Court can stop a recount order if there are serious constitutional questions. Work with a lawyer to frame your appeal around constitutional interpretation. This can prevent premature actions and save you time and resources while the case is fully heard.
Frequently asked questions
#What is the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in election petition appeals in Kenya?+
The Supreme Court can hear appeals from the Court of Appeal in election petitions if the lower court's reasoning involved constitutional interpretation, even if it didn't directly cite constitutional articles. This is because election laws are derived from the Constitution.
Can the Supreme Court stop a recount in an election petition in Kenya?+
Yes, the Supreme Court can grant a stay of execution to stop a recount while an appeal is pending. The applicant must show the appeal is arguable, would be pointless without a stay, and that the public interest favors stopping the recount.
What does it mean for an appeal to be 'nugatory' in Kenyan law?+
An appeal is nugatory if it would become useless or meaningless if the disputed action (like a recount) goes ahead before the appeal is decided. For example, if a recount determines the winner, a later successful appeal would be pointless.
How does the Supreme Court decide if a case involves constitutional interpretation in Kenya?+
The Court looks at the reasoning and conclusions of the lower courts. If the Court of Appeal interpreted election laws or regulations that are derived from constitutional principles, the case is considered to involve constitutional interpretation, even if specific articles were not cited.
Later judgments citing this (4)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- University of Nairobi v Okura (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E137 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2464 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2464 (KLR)18 Sept 2025
- University of Nairobi v M (Employment and Labour Relations Appeal E071 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2031 (KLR)[2025] KEELRC 2031 (KLR)4 Jul 2025
- Commission v Oduor & 4 others[2022] KESC 10 (KLR)19 May 2022
- Paul Kipsang Kosgei v National Industrial Training Authority & another; Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Social Services (Interested Party) [2021] KEELRC 1286 (KLR)[2021] KEELRC 1286 (KLR)9 Jul 2021
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lemanken Aramat v Harun Meitamei Lempanka & 2 others", Case Analysis (2014). Civil Application 8 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2014/45/eng@2014-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.