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

Werar v Kenya African National Union; Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Interested Party) (Complaint 330 (NRB) of 2017) [2017] KEPPDT 327 (KLR) (27 July 2017) (Judgment)

[2017] KEPPDT 327 (KLR) Public Procurement Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Public Procurement Tribunal
Case number
327
Citation
[2017] KEPPDT 327 (KLR)
Decided
27 July 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePolitical Parties DisputePostureAppeal from the original trialCoramChacha Mwita, Odunga
Holding

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the complaint and resolve the dispute between the complainant and the political party.

Facts

Mohamed Abdi Werar applied to be included in the Kenya African National Union's proportional-representation party list, but was excluded. He claims he had paid application fees and been vetted, but was not considered.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the complaint
  2. Whether the Tribunal can resolve the dispute between the complainant and the political party

Reasoning

The Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 40 of the Political Parties Act, 2011, as the complaint raises a dispute between a party member and a political party under Article 40 of the Political Parties Act, 2011. The Tribunal can apply the Constitution in resolving disputes before it.

Outcome

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the complaint and resolve the dispute.

Orders

  • Dated at Nairobi this 27th day of July 2017

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Political Parties Act, 2011
Cases cited (4)
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
  • Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case (Greece v Britain)
  • Complaint No 200 of 2017 Orange Democratic Movement Party v Jekconia Okungu Ogutu
  • Jeckonia Okungu Ogutu v Orange Democratic Movement Party & 7 others Civil Appeal No. 179 of 2017
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