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

Nicholas O. Gumbo v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others [2018] KEHC 8474 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 8474 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
8474
Citation
[2018] KEHC 8474 (KLR)
Decided
26 February 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeElection PetitionPosturePetitioner seeks to invalidate the election of the 3rd respondent as the winner of the Siaya County gubernatorial election.CoramE. N. MAINA
Holding

The petition is dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner was one of the candidates in the Siaya County gubernatorial election held on 8th August 2017. He was declared second with 179,368 votes, while the 3rd respondent was declared the winner with 198,889 votes. The petitioner filed a petition alleging irregularities in the election.

Issues

  1. Whether the election was conducted in accordance with the Constitution and the Elections Act
  2. Whether the irregularities affected the outcome of the election

Reasoning

The court held that the election was conducted substantially in accordance with the Constitution and the Elections Act, and that the irregularities did not affect the outcome.

Outcome

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • As between the petitioner and the 1st and 2nd respondents, there shall be no order for costs
  • As between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, there shall be an order for costs capped at Kshs 3,000,000
  • A certificate under Section 86(1) of the Elections Act shall issue to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and the Speaker of the Senate

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Elections Act
  • Constitution of Kenya
Cases cited (2)
  • Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others [2014] eKLR
  • Raila Amolo Odinga & Another v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission &4 Others & Attorney General & Another Election Petition No. 1 of 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.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case