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

REPUBLIC V RETURNING OFFICER ZIWA LA NG’OMBE WARD & 2 OTHERS [2013] KEHC 4686 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 4686 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
4686
Citation
[2013] KEHC 4686 (KLR)
Decided
25 March 2013
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureRespondent's Motion to Quash and ProhibitionCoramM. ODERO
Holding

The court finds the petition misconceived, incompetent, and bad in law, and strikes it out.

Facts

The applicant sought to quash the Returning Officer's decision to accept and count un-declared ballot boxes and to determine the election results. The applicant also sought to prohibit the Respondents from declaring the election results and to compel them to postpone the election and provide a full account of election materials.

Issues

  1. Quashing of Returning Officer's decision to accept and count un-declared ballot boxes
  2. Prohibition of Respondents from declaring election results
  3. Compelling Respondents to postpone election and provide a full account of election materials

Reasoning

The court holds that the applicant should have waited for gazettement of the results and then filed an election petition to seek redress, as the Constitution and the Elections Act provide for a specific procedure.

Outcome

The petition is struck out and the costs are met by the applicant.

Orders

  • Prohibition of Respondents from declaring election results
  • Compelling Respondents to postpone election and provide a full account of election materials

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • ELECTIONS ACT 2011
Cases cited (1)
  • ELECTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2013 FERDINARD NDUNGU WAITITU VS IEBC & 8 OTHERS
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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case