Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Election Petition Appeal 97 of 2017 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | Jackline Atieno Ongoro v Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) & Bassil Otieno Odero |
| Date Delivered: | 14 Jun 2017 |
| Case Class: | Civil |
| Court: | High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) |
| Case Action: | Judgment |
| Judge(s): | Luka Kiprotich Kimaru |
| Citation: | Jackline Atieno Ongoro v Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) & another [2017] eKLR |
| Court Division: | Constitutional and Judicial Review |
| County: | Nairobi |
| Case Outcome: | Appeal allowed |
| Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CONSTITUTIONAL AND JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
ELECTION PETITION APPEAL NO.97 OF 2017
JACKLINE ATIENO ONGORO...............................................APPELLANT
VERSUS
ORANGE DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT (ODM)........1ST RESPONDENT
BASSIL OTIENO ODERO..............................................2NDRESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
It was clear to this court that the tribunal (Political Parties Dispute Tribunal) erred when, upon setting aside its judgment of 13th May 2017, it proceeded to grant orders in favour of the 2nd Respondent without hearing the merits of the complaint lodged by the Appellant in her initial complaint. The 2nd Respondent’s application seeking to review the judgment of the tribunal was predicated upon his contention that he had not been served, and that the earlier judgment issued by the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal was issued without his knowledge. The Political Parties Dispute Tribunal upheld the 2nd Respondent’s assertion that he was not served. This court having read the passage of the Ruling of the tribunal agrees with the finding in that regard. However, this court notes that the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal proceeded to grant orders in favour of the 2nd Respondent without the benefit of hearing both parties in accordance with the merits or otherwise of their respective cases. The Appellant has a case when she says that she was condemned unheard by the tribunal. This court sees no basis upon which the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal issued the orders in favour of the 2nd Respondent after setting aside its judgment.
In the premises therefore, the Appellant partially succeeds in her appeal as a result of which the orders made in Paragraph 21 of the Ruling dated 8th June 2017 is set aside and substituted by an order of this court requiring the tribunal to hear the complaint lodged by the Appellant on its merits. The parties shall appear before the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal on 15th June 2017 at 9.00 a.m. for directions regarding the hearing, on merits, of the complaint that was lodged by the Appellant. The Political Parties Dispute Tribunal is directed to render its decision as soon as possible in any event not later than 4.00 p.m. on 16th June 2017. There shall be no orders as to costs.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2017
L. KIMARU
JUDGE
Please Wait. Searching ...