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

Ouma v Okiri & another (Complaint 160 of 2017) [2017] KEPPDT 39 (KLR) (12 May 2017) (Judgment)

[2017] KEPPDT 39 (KLR) Public Procurement Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Public Procurement Tribunal
Case number
39
Citation
[2017] KEPPDT 39 (KLR)
Decided
12 May 2017
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePolitical Parties DisputesPostureAppeal from Special County Appeals Tribunal to Political Parties Disputes TribunalCoramHezron
Holding

The Tribunal dismisses the Claimant's complaint for want of jurisdiction.

Facts

The Claimant disputes the issuance of a nomination certificate to the 1st Respondent for the Kisumu West Ward position due to the 1st Respondent not being a member of the 2nd Respondent at the time of the party primaries. The 2nd Respondent’s Special County Appeals Tribunal ruled that the 1st Respondent was not a member and that the nomination process was marred with irregularities.

Issues

  1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim considering the Claimant was not a party to the proceedings filed by John Jacob Ngasi before the 2nd Respondent's Special County Appeals Tribunal.
  2. Whether the Claimant's complaint is sufficient to warrant the assumption of jurisdiction by the Tribunal.

Reasoning

The Tribunal holds that it lacks jurisdiction due to the Claimant not being a party to the proceedings filed by John Jacob Ngasi before the 2nd Respondent's Special County Appeals Tribunal, and the Claimant did not exhaust the internal disputes resolution mechanism within his political party.

Outcome

The Claimant's complaint is dismissed.

Orders

  • The Claimant's complaint be and is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
  • No orders as to costs.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Political Parties Act
  • Section 40 (2)
Cases cited (1)
  • Hezron J. Opiyo and Another vs. Peter Anyang' Nyong'o and 4 Others PPDT Complaint No. 47 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 0.3 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case