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

David Wamatsi Omusotsi v Returning Officer Mumias - East Constituency & 2 others [2017] KEHC 2704 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 2704 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2704
Citation
[2017] KEHC 2704 (KLR)
Decided
2 November 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeElection PetitionPostureRespondents' Motion to Strike Out PetitionCoramEmukule, KLR, Onyancha, Lesiit, Makau, Muriithi, Tuiyot
Holding

The supporting affidavit of the petitioner and the annexed affidavits are not commissioned by a commissioner for oaths and are therefore struck out.

Facts

David Wamatsi Omusotsi filed an election petition against the Returning Officer Mumias East Constituency and Benjamin Washiali Jomo, alleging dissatisfaction with the election process.

Issues

  1. Whether the provisions of rules 8 and 12 of the elections rules are mandatory.
  2. Whether the petition is incurably defective.
  3. Whether the court has discretion to allow the petitioner to file fresh affidavits in support of the petition.

Reasoning

The court ruled that the affidavits in support of the petition and the annexed affidavits of witnesses are not affidavits as known in law and are therefore not admissible.

Outcome

The petition is dismissed due to the non-compliance with the rules of procedure.

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed.
  • The court can grant leave to the petitioner to rectify the error and file fresh affidavits.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, Cap 15 Laws of Kenya
  • Elections Rules
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Act Cap 9 Laws of Kenya
Cases cited (1)
  • Eng. Peter Kimori Maraga, Kisii Election Petition No.7 of 2013
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