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

Shukra Hussein Gure v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others [2017] KEHC 1609 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 1609 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1609
Citation
[2017] KEHC 1609 (KLR)
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeElection PetitionPosturePetitioner's Interlocutory ApplicationsCoramB. THURANIRAJADEN
Holding

The court directed the IEBC to make arrangements for additional seals and padlocks for the election materials and to deal with electronic evidence in accordance with the Evidence Act and Electronic Evidence Regulations.

Facts

The Petitioner, Shukra Hussein Gure, filed three interlocutory applications against the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) and the Country Returning Officer, seeking orders to dismiss the petition under Section 78 of the Elections Act.

Issues

  1. Petition dismissal under Section 78 of the Elections Act
  2. Placement of additional seals and padlocks for election materials
  3. Electronic evidence handling

Reasoning

The court acknowledged the Petitioner's concerns about the security of the election materials and the need for additional security measures.

Outcome

The court granted the directions and set a hearing date for December 13, 2017.

Orders

  • IEBC to file an affidavit explaining the placement of additional seals and padlocks
  • IEBC to deal with electronic evidence in accordance with the Evidence Act and Electronic Evidence Regulations
  • Petitioner to call 7 witnesses and take 5 days
  • 1st and 2nd Respondents to call 5 witnesses and take 4 days
  • 3rd Respondent to call 2 witnesses and take 3 days
  • Witnesses to be given one day's notice

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Evidence Act Cap 80 of Laws of Kenya
  • Electronic Evidence Regulations
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