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

Chongeywo v Orange Democratic Movement (Complaint 425 of 2017) [2017] KEPPDT 371 (KLR) (1 August 2017) (Judgment)

[2017] KEPPDT 371 (KLR) Public Procurement Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Public Procurement Tribunal
Case number
371
Citation
[2017] KEPPDT 371 (KLR)
Decided
1 August 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePolitical Parties DisputesPostureAppeal from a decision of the Political Parties Disputes TribunalCoramM. O. Lwanga, Desma Nungo, Paul Ngotho
Holding

The Tribunal found in favor of the Claimant, declaring the party list not to reflect the required ethnic and regional diversity and directing the Respondent to reconstitute the list.

Facts

The Claimant, a member of the Respondent (Orange Democratic Movement), challenged his exclusion from the party list for the National Assembly due to lack of ethnic and regional diversity, and the lack of transparency in the nomination process.

Issues

  1. Ethnic and regional diversity in the party list
  2. Transparency in the nomination process

Reasoning

The Tribunal ruled that the party list did not comply with Article 90(2)(c) of the Constitution, which requires the list to reflect the ethnic and regional diversity of the country.

Outcome

The Claimant's complaint was allowed, and the Respondent was ordered to reconstitute the National Assembly Party List.

Orders

  • A declaration that the party list does not reflect the ethnic and regional diversity of Kenya
  • The Respondent to reconstitute the National Assembly Party List
  • The Respondent to consider nominating the Claimant to the vacant slot
  • Notification to IEBC

Remedies

  • Reconstitution of the National Assembly Party List
  • Nomination of the Claimant to the vacant slot

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Article 90(2)(c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
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