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

Talib v Wiper Democratic Movement – Kenya & 2 others; Wambua & another (Interested Parties) (Complaint E099 (NRB) of 2022) [2022] KEPPDT 984 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (29 July 2022) (Ruling)

[2022] KEPPDT 984 (KLR) Public Procurement Tribunal
Read PDF
Court
Public Procurement Tribunal
Case number
984
Citation
[2022] KEPPDT 984 (KLR)
Decided
29 July 2022
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypePolitical Parties DisputePostureAppeal from a lower court rulingCoramML Odongo, T K Tororey, L Wambui
Holding

The Tribunal finds that the Complainant's attempt to invoke the internal political party dispute resolution mechanisms was not timely, thus the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

Facts

The Complainant, Abubakar Ahmed Talib, raised concerns about the Respondents (Wiper Democratic Movement – Kenya and the Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission) authorizing the 2nd Interested Party to implement a decision reached through an unlawful process.

Issues

  1. whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the dispute
  2. whether the interim orders are warranted
  3. who should bear the costs of the application

Reasoning

The Tribunal notes that the wording of section 40(2) of the Political Parties Act requires a party to the dispute to adduce evidence of an attempt to subject to the internal political party dispute resolution mechanisms. The Complainant's attempt was deemed perfunctory and not timely.

Outcome

The Tribunal dismissed the application and did not issue interim orders.

Orders

  • Interim order by way of an injunction was not issued

Remedies

  • None

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Political Parties Act
  • Elections Act
  • Civil Procedure Act
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case