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

Nahashon Akunga v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others [2018] KEHC 8751 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 8751 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
8751
Citation
[2018] KEHC 8751 (KLR)
Decided
18 January 2018
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeElection PetitionPostureRespondents' Application for Scrutiny of VotesCoramNot explicitly named in the text, but implied to be the presiding judge(s)
Holding

The application for scrutiny of votes is dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner sought scrutiny of votes for the election of the Kisii County Women Representative, but also requested scrutiny of returns for other elections and failed to specify which polling stations. The application was made after the filing of the petition.

Issues

  1. Whether the petitioner's application for scrutiny of votes should be granted.
  2. Whether the petitioner has established a prima facie case for the scrutiny of votes.

Reasoning

The court held that the petitioner failed to specify which polling stations he desired to have scrutinized and did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the application. The court also stated that the application was an abuse of process as it sought to introduce new evidence.

Outcome

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for scrutiny of votes dismissed

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Elections Act No. 24 of 2011
  • Election (General) Regulations, 2012
  • Elections (Parliamentary and County) Petition Rules 2017
Cases cited (5)
  • Philip Mukwe Wasike v James Lusweti Mukwe & 2 Others
  • Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji
  • Philip Osore Ogutu v Michael Aringo & 2 Others
  • Gideon Mwangangi Wambua & Another v IEBC & 2 Others
  • Nicholas Kiptoo arap Korir v IEBC & 7 Others
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