Coalition for Reforms and Democracy (CORD) v Attorney General; International Institute for Legislative Affairs & Katiba Institute (Interested Parties) (Petition 476 of 2015) [2019] KEHC 10892 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (30 May 2019) (Judgment)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 10892
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 10892 (KLR)
- Decided
- 30 May 2019
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeConstitutional and Human RightsPosturePetition for MandamusCoramConstitution. As Moseneke DC, Deputy, Dickson, IILL, JM MATIVO, Mahomed A., McLachlin, Speaker
Holding
The court held that the President's reservations on the Bills were within his powers under Article 115(1)(b) and that the reservations did not violate the petitioners' rights.
Facts
The petitioners challenged the President's reservations on several Bills, arguing that the President's powers under Article 115(1)(b) of the Constitution were limited and that the reservations violated constitutional rights.
Issues
- Extent and scope of the President's powers in rejecting and referring Bills
- Legislative function and powers of the President
- Public participation in reservations
- Unconstitutionality of retirement benefits legislation
- Requirements for mandamus order
Reasoning
The court reasoned that the President's powers under the 2010 Constitution are distinct from those under the previous Constitution, and that the President's reservations were within his powers as a check and balance mechanism.
Outcome
Affirmed
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Constitution of Kenya
- Retirement Benefits (Deputy President and Designated State Officers) Act, 2015
Cases cited (6)
- Oloka Onyango & Others v Attorney General
- Makula International v Cardinal Emmanuel Nsubuga & Another
- Independent Policing Oversight Authority & Another v Attorney General & 660 others
- Doctors for Life International v The Speaker National Assembly
- Speaker of the National Assembly v De Like
- Martin Nyaga Wambora & 4 Others v T
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…