SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Feisal Shaib Khan & another v Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission (Iebc) & 5 others [2018] KECA 195 (KLR)

[2018] KECA 195 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
195
Citation
[2018] KECA 195 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal from the High Court's ruling on a constitutional petitionCoramW. KARANJA, M. K. KOOME, J. OTIENO-ODEK
Holding

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appellants' constitutional petition and the trial court did not err in upholding the preliminary objection.

Facts

The appellants' names were not included in the IEBC's gazette after KANU submitted a Party List for the 2017 general elections. The appellants filed a constitutional petition and a complaint before the PPDT, but their names were not reinstated.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appellants' constitutional petition regarding the nomination of party candidates to the Lamu County Assembly.
  2. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to determine the appellants' claims regarding the gazettement of the 3rd and 4th respondents as nominees of KANU to the Lamu County Assembly.

Reasoning

The Court held that party nomination disputes after gazettement by the IEBC can only be heard and determined by way of an election petition, not by a constitutional petition or judicial review application. The jurisdiction to hear an election petition is vested upon the Magistrate's Court, not the High Court.

Outcome

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Articles 87, 105 (1) (b) of the Constitution
  • Elections Act
  • Judicial Review Act
Cases cited (3)
  • Wamboko vs. Kibunguchi & another, (2008) 2 KLR 477
  • Hamdia Taroi Sheikh Nuri vs. Faith Tumaini Kombe & 2 Others, Election Petition Appeal No. 27 of 2018
  • Moses Mwicigi & 14 others (supra)
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case