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

Republic v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & another; Kihusa & 4 others (Ex parte Applicants) (Miscellaneous Application 94 of 2012) [2012] KEHC 3571 (KLR) (9 July 2012) (Judgment)

[2012] KEHC 3571 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
3571
Citation
[2012] KEHC 3571 (KLR)
Decided
9 July 2012
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeDelimitation of Constituency and Ward BoundariesPostureAppeal from the High Court of KenyaCoramDAS MAJANJA, Dickson, Gibbs, McLachlin, Mombasa, Nairobi, Nyarangi, Pickard, Sachs, Shore
Holding

The application lacks merit and is dismissed with no orders.

Facts

The applicants, including Eliot Lidubwi Kihusa, claim that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) did not consider their wishes in the delimitation of electoral areas, specifically regarding the Wajir Bor community. The IEBC argues that the delimitation process was carried out in compliance with the law and considered all necessary factors.

Issues

  1. Whether the IEBC took into consideration the wishes of the Wajir Bor community in the delimitation of electoral areas.
  2. Whether the delimitation of electoral areas would adversely affect the community of interests of the residents of Wajir Bor.

Reasoning

The court found that the IEBC did not need to consider the wishes of the Wajir Bor community as the mandate of delimitation is to achieve fairness, which would cure marginalization. The court also noted that the Igoki community is spread across the two wards and their interests would be difficult to define and take care of by a process of delimitation.

Outcome

Dismissed with no orders

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commissions Act, 2011
  • National Assemblies and Constituencies and County Assemblies Wards Order, 2012
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 1.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case