Ndago v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 2 others (Election Petition 2 of 2022) [2022] KEMC 4 (KLR) (4 November 2022) (Ruling)
- Court
- Magistrate's Courts
- Case number
- 4
- Citation
- [2022] KEMC 4 (KLR)
- Decided
- 4 November 2022
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeElection PetitionPosturePetitioner's applications to compel respondents to provide election materials and to strike out affidavitsCoramEklr Koome
Holding
The court directs the supply of election materials and the striking out of certain affidavits, but allows the supporting affidavit to stand.
Facts
The petitioner seeks the supply of election materials and the striking out of certain affidavits, while the respondents oppose these requests.
Issues
- Affidavits of deponents to be struck out
- New evidence in the form of annexed documents
- Compliance of supporting affidavit with election rules
Reasoning
The court finds the petitioner's request for election materials is justified and the affidavits can be struck out due to lack of compliance with rules. The supporting affidavit is allowed as it is not in conflict with the rules.
Outcome
The court orders the supply of election materials and the striking out of certain affidavits, while allowing the supporting affidavit.
Orders
- Supply of election materials to the parties and the court
- Striking out certain affidavits
- Allowing the supporting affidavit
Remedies
- Supply of election materials
- Striking out certain affidavits
- Allowing the supporting affidavit
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules 2017
- Elections Act 2011
Cases cited (4)
- John Michael Njenga Mututho v Jayne Njeri Wanjiru K Hara & 2 other (2008) Eklr Koome J
- Philiph Osore Ogutu v Michael Aringo & 2 other (2013) eKLR
- Justus Mangumbu Omiti v Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & ANOR (2017) EKLR
- Chris Munga N Bichange & 2 other v IEBC & 2 other (2017) EKLR
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…