Peter Makau Wambua v Political Parties Dispute Tribunal & 3 others [2017] KEHC 8822 (KLR)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 8822
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 8822 (KLR)
- Decided
- 16 May 2017
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeJudicial ReviewPostureApplicant seeks leave to commence judicial review proceedings challenging the decision of the National Elections Board of Wiper Democratic Movement.
Holding
The High Court has the powers conferred by the Constitution to entertain disputes arising from party primaries.
Facts
Peter Makau Wambua is a parliamentary aspirant of Matungulu Constituency of Machakos County. He applied to participate in the nomination process for the subject Constituency but was barred from contesting under the Party Ticket.
Issues
- Scope of the powers exercisable by the High Court in election disputes
- Whether the High Court can entertain disputes arising from party primaries
Reasoning
The Court relies on the Constitution and previous decisions to assert that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes arising from party primaries, not limited by Article 165 of the Constitution.
Outcome
The applicant is granted leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
Orders
- Leave granted to commence judicial review proceedings
- Order for a stay of the leave
Remedies
- Judicial review of the decision of the National Elections Board of Wiper Democratic Movement
- Compelling the Party to conduct fresh nominations for Matungulu Constituency
- Compelling the Party to include the applicant's name as a contestant in the nomination process for the said Constituency
Authorities cited
Legislation (3)
- Constitution of the Republic of Kenya 2010
- High Court Practice and Procedure Rules 2006
- Fair Administrative Action Act No. 4 of 2015
Cases cited (2)
- Gideon Mwangangi Wambua & Another vs. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 Others [2013] eKLR
- Kinyanjui vs. Attorney General [2005] 2 KLR 454
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…