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

Mohamed Khamis Mwasengeza v Independen Election & Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & 2 others [2013] KEMC 87 (KLR)

[2013] KEMC 87 (KLR) Magistrate's Courts
Read PDF
Court
Magistrate's Courts
Case number
87
Citation
[2013] KEMC 87 (KLR)
Decided
18 June 2013
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeElection PetitionPostureApplication for court determination of scrutiny of votes and recount of votesCoramE.K. Usui Macharia, Ag. SPM
Holding

The court finds no basis for a case for scrutiny as by law required and dismisses the prayers for scrutiny of votes and documents and the prayer for tallying of votes.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohamed Khamis Mwasengeza, sought scrutiny of votes and related documents for the election of a member of the Kinondo Assembly Ward in Msambweni constituency held on 4th March 2013. The 1st and 2nd respondents, IEBC and David Maro, alleged that the election was free and fair.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has the discretion to order scrutiny of votes during the hearing of the petition.
  2. Whether the court can order for scrutiny of votes and documents at the pre-hearing stage.
  3. Whether the court can order for recount of votes if it is the only issue in the petition.

Reasoning

The court considers the submissions and authorities, including Sec 82 of the Elections Act and Rule 33(1) of the Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petition Rules, and concludes that the allegations are better canvased at the hearing of the petition.

Outcome

The application for court determination is dismissed.

Orders

  • The court declines the prayer for recount of votes.
  • The court dismisses the prayers for scrutiny of votes and documents and the prayer for tallying of votes.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petition Rules 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 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case