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

Philip Mukui Wasike v James Lusweti Mukwe, IEBC & Silas Rotich (Petition 5 of 2013) [2013] KEHC 2233 (KLR) (26 September 2013) (Judgment)

[2013] KEHC 2233 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2233
Citation
[2013] KEHC 2233 (KLR)
Decided
26 September 2013
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeElection PetitionPostureRespondents' appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at BungomaCoramFred Ochieng, Kimaru, L.N Mutende, Lenaola, Maraga, Maranga, Muchelule, Mulwa, Musinga, Rawal
Holding

The court found the petition lacking in specificity and particularity, but did not deviate from its previous finding. The court ordered a scrutiny and recount in specified polling stations.

Facts

The petitioner Philip Mukui Wasike contested the Kabuchai Parliamentary seat in the General Elections held on 4th March, 2013 and lost to James Lusweti Mukwe. The results were contested, and a petition was filed against the respondents, including IEBC and Silas Rotich.

Issues

  1. credibility of the electoral process
  2. validity of the election results
  3. petition's sufficiency and competency
  4. allegations of bribery and treating

Reasoning

The court ruled that the petition was insufficiently specific and generalized, but did not dismiss it due to the lack of specific allegations.

Outcome

The court upheld the election results and ordered a scrutiny and recount in specified polling stations.

Orders

  • Order for scrutiny and recount in specified polling stations

Remedies

  • Scrutiny and recount of votes in specified polling stations

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Elections Act, 2011
  • Constitution of Kenya
Cases cited (2)
  • Issak v. Hussein & Another (2008) 1KLR (EP) 786
  • Joho v. Nyange and Another (2008) 3KLR (EP) 500
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