Presidential Election Petition 4 of 2017

Case Metadata
Case Number:	Presidential Election Petition 4 of 2017
Parties:	Mue & another v Chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 others
Date Delivered:	14 Nov 2017
Case Class:	Civil
Court:	Supreme Court of Kenya
Case Action:	Ruling
Judge(s):	David Kenani Maraga, Jackton Boma Ojwang, Isaac Lenaola, Philomena Mbete Mwilu, Smokin Charles Wanjala, Njoki Susanna Ndungu
Citation:	Mue & another v Chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 others (Presidential Election Petition 4 of 2017) [2017] KESC 5 (KLR) (Election Petitions) (14 November 2017) (Ruling)
Court Division:	Election Petitions
County:	Nairobi
Case Summary:	Applications in presidential election petitions should consider the practicability of the orders considering the timelines of the presidential election petition Brief facts The 1^st and 2^nd Petitioners made an application for orders of scrutiny dated October 13, 2017. The application contained 20 prayers in total. Issues Circumstances under which orders for scrutiny of votes would be granted. Held The principles laid down in Peter Gatirau Munya regarding applications and orders for scrutiny would guide the Supreme Court in making its determination. Additionally, the Supreme Court would also be guided by its ruling of October 28, 2017 in Raila Odinga & Kalonzo Musyoka v IEBC & others wherein it clarified the grounds upon which an order for scrutiny would be granted or partially granted or declined.
Extract:	Cases Munya, Gatirau Peter v Kithinji, Dickson Mwenda & 2 others (Petition 2B of 2014, [2014] eKLR) — Applied Odinga, Raila Amolo & Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, Chairperson Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta (Election Petition 1 of 2017; [2017] KESC 31 (KLR)) — Applied Statutes None referred to Advocates None mentioned
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

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Parties:

Mue & another v Chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 others

Date Delivered:

14 Nov 2017

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

Supreme Court of Kenya

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

David Kenani Maraga, Jackton Boma Ojwang, Isaac Lenaola, Philomena Mbete Mwilu, Smokin Charles Wanjala, Njoki Susanna Ndungu

Citation:

Mue & another v Chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 others (Presidential Election Petition 4 of 2017) [2017] KESC 5 (KLR) (Election Petitions) (14 November 2017) (Ruling)

Court Division:

Election Petitions

County:

Nairobi

Case Summary:

Applications in presidential election petitions should consider the practicability of the orders considering the timelines of the presidential election petition

Brief facts

The 1^st and 2^nd Petitioners made an application for orders of scrutiny dated October 13, 2017. The application contained 20 prayers in total.

Issues

Circumstances under which orders for scrutiny of votes would be granted.

Held

The principles laid down in Peter Gatirau Munya regarding applications and orders for scrutiny would guide the Supreme Court in making its determination. Additionally, the Supreme Court would also be guided by its ruling of October 28, 2017 in Raila Odinga & Kalonzo Musyoka v IEBC & others wherein it clarified the grounds upon which an order for scrutiny would be granted or partially granted or declined.

Extract:

Cases

Munya, Gatirau Peter v Kithinji, Dickson Mwenda & 2 others (Petition 2B of 2014, [2014] eKLR) — Applied
Odinga, Raila Amolo & Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, Chairperson Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta (Election Petition 1 of 2017; [2017] KESC 31 (KLR)) — Applied

Statutes

None referred to

Advocates

None mentioned

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

Njonjo Mue & another v Chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 others [2017] eKLR

Neutral citation: [2017] KESC 5 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Supreme Court of Kenya

Election Petitions

Presidential Election Petition 4 of 2017

DK Maraga, CJ & P, PM Mwilu, DCJ & V-P, JB Ojwang, SC Wanjala, NS Ndungu & I Lenaola, SCJJ

November 14, 2017

Between

Njonjo Mue

1^st Petitioner

Khelef Khalifa

2^nd Petitioner

and

Chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission

1^st Respondent

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission

2^nd Respondent

Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta

3^rd Respondent

National Super Alliance Coalition

4^th Respondent

Ruling

[1]We have considered the application for scrutiny dated, October 13, 2017, by the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners in Election Petition No 4 of 2017. The application contains 20 prayers in all. We have also considered the affidavits in support of and opposition to the said application. We have paid due regard to the oral submissions of counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. In arriving at the orders we are about to make, we have been guided by the principles laid down by this court in Peter Gatirau Munya; regarding applications and orders for scrutiny. We are further guided by our ruling of October 28, 2017 in Raila Odinga & Kalonzo Musyoka v IEBC & Others; wherein following an application for scrutiny by the petitioners, this court further clarified the grounds upon which an order for scrutiny may be granted, or partially granted, or declined altogether.

[2]Pursuant to the foregoing, by unanimous decision, we hereby make the following orders:(i)The 2^nd respondent do grant access to all original forms 34A, forms 34B, and forms 34C to the petitioners herein. (prayer 14).(ii)The 2^nd respondent do avail a certified copy of the voter register to the petitioners at the cost of the latter (petitioners) (Prayer 17).(iii)Prayers 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are hereby declined. The said prayers have been declined on the basis of very clear grounds which will be elaborated in a detailed version of this ruling to be issued by the court at a later date. Some of the prayers have been declined due to the sheer impracticability of their implementation given the short time left for the determination of the petitions at hand. Others have been declined because they were not pleaded with sufficient particularity in the petition. Yet others, were declined on grounds that they are couched in such general terms as to be no more than fishing expeditions.

DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017................................................D. K. MARAGA P. M. MWILUCHIEF JUSTICE & PRESIDENTOFTHE SUPREME COURT DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE & VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT...............................................J. B. OJWANG S. C. WANJALAJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT...............................................N. S. NDUNG’U I. LENAOLAJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURTI certify that this is atrue copy of the originalREGISTRARSUPREME COURT OF KENYA

Case Content:		Subject:
Case Number:		Parties:
Judge:		Court:
	Delivery Date Range:
From:		To:

Case Search