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

Mboo v Jubilee Party (Complaint 411 of 2017) [2017] KEPPDT 369 (KLR) (28 July 2017) (Judgment)

[2017] KEPPDT 369 (KLR) Public Procurement Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Public Procurement Tribunal
Case number
369
Citation
[2017] KEPPDT 369 (KLR)
Decided
28 July 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePolitical Parties DisputesPostureAppeal DismissedCoramKyalo Mbobu (Chairman), James Atema (Member), Hassan Abdi (Member)
Holding

The Tribunal held that the Respondent’s discretion over the composition of the party list is not absolute and that the Complainant was not qualified to be nominated.

Facts

The Complainant, James Wanyoike Mboo, approached the Tribunal challenging the Respondent, Jubilee Party, for not including his name in the party list for gender special nominees to the County Assembly of Kiambu. The Complainant claimed he applied for the nomination and was included in the list of successful nominees.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent’s discretion to decide the composition of its party list was absolute.
  2. Whether the Complainant was qualified to be nominated in the Respondent’s party list.

Reasoning

The Tribunal ruled that the Respondent’s party list must advance an ascertainable special interest and that a political party must consider the law when deciding who to put in the party list. The Complainant was not a member of the Respondent’s party and thus not qualified for nomination.

Outcome

The complaint was dismissed.

Orders

  • The complaint be and is hereby dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own cost.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (1)
  • Commissioner 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 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case