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

ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA v ATTORNEY GENERAL & 2 OTHERS [2007] KEHC 755 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 755 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
755
Citation
[2007] KEHC 755 (KLR)
Decided
20 July 2007
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeConstitutionalPostureAmended Originating MotionCorampresiding judge
Holding

The Court upholds the preliminary objection to the amended application, upholds objections raised by the Attorney General and interested parties, and disallows the invocation of Section 84 of the Constitution.

Facts

The Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) filed an Amended Originating Motion seeking interpretation of the Public Procurement and Disposals Act 2005, alleging infringement of its functions and rights. The ECK had invited tenders for printing materials essential for elections and voter education, which were awarded to a successful bidder. An unsuccessful bidder challenged the award, leading to a preliminary objection.

Issues

  1. Interpretation of the Public Procurement and Disposals Act 2005
  2. Autonomy of the Electoral Commission of Kenya

Reasoning

The Court finds that Section 41(9) of the Constitution does not provide procurement as a function of the Electoral Commission of Kenya. However, the ECK has established that the Procurement Review Board is a tribunal with powers to annul tenders issued by the ECK, potentially affecting its autonomy.

Outcome

The Court upholds the preliminary objection and disallows the invocation of Section 84.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Public Procurement and Disposals Act 2005
  • Exchange and Audit (Public Procurement) Regulations 2001
  • Constitution of Kenya
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