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

Matingwony v Jubilee Party (Complaint 344 (NRB) of 2017) [2017] KEPPDT 130 (KLR) (27 July 2017) (Judgment)

[2017] KEPPDT 130 (KLR) Public Procurement Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Public Procurement Tribunal
Case number
130
Citation
[2017] KEPPDT 130 (KLR)
Decided
27 July 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePolitical Parties DisputesPostureAppeal from the original trialCoramKyalo Mbobu (Chairman), James Atema (Member), Hassan Abdi (Member), Dr. Adelaide Mbithi (Member)
Holding

The Tribunal orders that the complaint be allowed, the Respondent to reconstitute its party list to comply with the law, and each party to bear its own costs.

Facts

Catherine Cheptoo Matingwony participated in the Jubilee Party's primaries for Ainabkoi/Olare Ward and was not shortlisted. She claims this violated her rights under Articles 38, 47, and 90 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. She sought a declaration and an order to reinstate her on the party list.

Issues

  1. Whether the Complainant was entitled to be given reasons for not being shortlisted.
  2. Whether the Respondent’s party list of nominees to the Uasin Gishu County Assembly fulfills the requirement for diversity.

Reasoning

The Tribunal held that the Complainant was entitled to reasons for not being shortlisted and that the Respondent's party list did not reflect special interests as required by law.

Outcome

The complaint is allowed, and the Respondent is ordered to reconstitute its party list.

Orders

  • Allow the complaint.
  • Order the Respondent to reconstitute its party list.
  • Order the Respondent to communicate its decisions.
  • Order the Respondent to bear its own costs.

Remedies

  • Reconstitute the party list to comply with the law.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Fair Administration of Actions Act, 2015
  • County Government Act, 2012
Cases cited (1)
  • Commission for the Implementation of the Constitution v Attorney General (2013) 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.
Full judgment 0.4 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case