REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION JR CASE NO. 239 OF 2013 REPUBLIC...........................................................................APPLICANT VERSUS THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION...............................RESPONDENT MARGARET NENKAI YENKO..............................INTERESTED PARTY CATHERINE K.............................................EX-PARTE JUDGMENT 1. The Ex-parte Applicant Catherine Kimaren, being dissatisfied with the decision of the Respondent, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) in COMPLAINT NO. IEBC/NDRC/ PL/13/2013- SILVIA SIOLE NKAINATIE V TNA lodged these judicial review proceedings. According to the statutory statement dated 11th July, 2013 the Applicant faults the Respondent for allegedly acting ultra vires the powers donated to it by Section 34-37 of the Elections Act, 2011. It is the Applicant’s case that the Respondent failed to take into account relevant matters in dismissing the complaint she had raised before its Disputes Resolution Committee (the Committee). The Respondent is also accused of acting unfairly and arbitrarily by omitting the Applicant’s name for the TNA party’s nominee list for Narok County Assembly. 2. The application is opposed by the Respondent and the Interested Party (Margaret Nenkai Yenko). Their case is that the Respondent acted legally, reasonably and fairly and the Applicant has not established any grounds for the grant of the orders sought. 3. We have considered the arguments made by the parties herein and we find as follows:a. The issue of preparation and submission of lists to IEBC is a party issue and any dispute arising therefrom should be dealt with using the party internal mechanism for resolving disputes. Any dispute unsolved by the party’s internal mechanisms can be escalated to the Political Parties Tribunal created under the Political Parties Act, 2011. b. The Respondent considered the material placed before it and reached a decision based on the evidence and facts placed before it. There is no evidence that the Respondent breached the law or acted unreasonably. 4. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Applicant has not established any grounds for the grant of the orders sought. Her application is therefore dismissed with no orders as to costs. Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 12th day of July, 2013 MUMBI NGUGI, D. S. MAJANJA, JUDGE JUDGE W. K. KORIR, JUDGE
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.