THUO MATHENGE v NDERITU GACHAGUA & 2 others (Election Petition 1 of 2013) [2013] KEHC 3101 (KLR) (10 June 2013)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 3101
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3101 (KLR)
- Decided
- 10 June 2013
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeElection PetitionPostureRespondents filed preliminary objections to the petitionCoramIndia YOURA, Kwach, M. Ibrahim, MACHAKOS. Mwongo, Mwongo, NKEDIANYE, Majanja, Ochieng, POWELL
Holding
The court determines that the declaration of election results is by IEBC through Kenya Gazette, and the time starts to run from the date of publication in the gazette.
Facts
The petitioner filed a petition alleging that the Returning Officer gazetted a stranger as the running mate instead of the petitioner's bona fide running mate, leading to the petitioner's loss in the gubernatorial election.
Issues
- What constitutes a declaration of election results
- When does time start to run in respect of 28 days within which petitions are filed
- Is there an internal conflict between the Constitution and the Election Act
- Was the petition filed prematurely and if so what is its effect
- What order should the court make herein
Reasoning
The court relies on previous decisions to establish that the declaration of results is by the returning officer and takes effect from the date of publication in the gazette, not from the date of the returning officer's declaration.
Outcome
The court finds the petition premature and dismisses it.
Authorities cited
Legislation (4)
- Article 87 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
- Section 76 of the Election Act 2012
- Article 259 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
- Article 261 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Cases cited (5)
- FERDINAND WAITITU vs IEBC AND OTHERS
- JOSIAH TARAIYA KIPELIEN OLE KORES vs DR DAVID OLE NKEDIANYE AND OTHERS
- NAIROBI ELECTION PETITION NO. 15 OF 2013 HON CLEMENT KUNGU WAIBARA & ANOTHER vs FRANCIS KIGO NJENGA AND 3 OTHERS
- GIDEON MWANGANGI WAMBUA
- SULEIMAN SAID SHAHBAL
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.
Loading judgment…