REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Nairobi (Nairobi Law Courts) Judicial Review 45 of 2013 STEVE MUTUKU MUTUA ................................................................................................APPLICANT AND JAMES MUTISO MUTUA.....................................................................................1ST RESPONDENT THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE.................................................................................2ND RESPONDENT THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION.......3RD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT 1. Steven Mutuku Mutua moves the court once again to seek orders by way of Notice of Motion filed on 7th February 2013. In essence he seeks a rehearing of his case. He was a candidate for the position of Member of National Assembly for Yatta Constituency on a TNA Ticket. He alleged serious irregularities in the conduct of the nomination on 17th and 18th January 2013. As he had lost the nomination, he lodged an appeal to the IEBC Dispute Resolution Committee. The Committee in NDRC No. 106 of 2013, decided the case against him by dismissing the complaint on the basis of insufficient evidence. 2. The applicant then lodged an application before this court, to wit Misc. Appl. No. 39 of 2013. We heard the matter and it was dismissed on 1st February 2013. The reasons for the decision were that, we found no grounds to interfere with the Committee’s decision. 3. This case is based on the same facts. Nothing new has emerged and it is with profound sympathy to the applicant that I must dismiss the application. No order as to costs. Dated and Delivered at Nairobi this 7th February 2013. D.S. MAJANJA JUDGE
Original judgment
Steve Mutuku Mutua v James Mutiso Mutua & 2 others
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.