Chris Munga N. Bichage & 2 others v I.E.B.C & 2 others [2017] KEHC 2638 (KLR)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 2638
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 2638 (KLR)
- Decided
- 6 November 2017
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeElection PetitionPostureAppeal from a lower court decisionCoramJULIUS ME
Holding
The court ordered the 1st and 2nd Respondents to provide certified copies/extracts of information/data related to the usage of KIEMS Kits, BVR machines, and electronic gadgets used in the election.
Facts
The 1st Petitioner, Chris Munga N. Bichage, seeks orders regarding the safe storage and preservation of election materials and the provision of certified copies/extracts of information related to the usage of KIEMS Kits, BVR machines, and electronic gadgets used in the election.
Issues
- Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents are enjoined to supply election materials to the 1st Petitioner.
- Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents should provide certified copies/extracts of information/data related to the usage of KIEMS Kits, BVR machines, and electronic gadgets used in the election.
Reasoning
The court considered the provisions of the Constitution, the Access to Information Act, and the Elections (Technology) Regulations, and found that the Respondents are required to provide the requested information.
Outcome
The application was granted.
Orders
- The 1st and 2nd Respondents are to provide certified copies/extracts of information/data related to the usage of KIEMS Kits, BVR machines, and electronic gadgets used in the election.
Authorities cited
Legislation (5)
- Elections (Technology) Regulations 2017
- Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act 2011
- Access to Information Act 2016
- Elections Act 2011
- Petitions Rules 2017
Cases cited (4)
- Article 35 of the Constitution
- Section 4 of the Access to Information Act 2016
- Section 27 of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Act 2011
- Regulations 15, 16, and 17 of the Elections (Technology) Regulations 2017
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…