Please Wait. Searching ...
|Case Number:||Petition 2 of 2017|
|Parties:||Mwau v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others; Attorney General (Amicus Curiae)|
|Date Delivered:||14 Nov 2017|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Kenya|
|Judge(s):||David Kenani Maraga, Jackton Boma Ojwang, Isaac Lenaola, Mohammed Khadhar Ibrahim, Philomena Mbete Mwilu, Smokin Charles Wanjala, Njoki Susanna Ndungu|
|Citation:||Mwau v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others; Attorney General (Amicus Curiae) (Petition 2 of 2017)  KESC 3 (KLR) (Civ) (14 November 2017) (Ruling)|
Whether the Attorney General’s Amicus Brief had addressed points of law that had not been addressed by the parties to the suit
The applicant (the Attorney General) lodged an application to be enjoined in the proceedings as amicus curiae. According to the applicant, his joinder in the proceedings would enhance the right of access to justice in terms of the qualitative normative content of the political rights as well as open positive lines of development of electoral law jurisprudence with regard to whether nominations of presidential candidates was a procedural requirement in the conduct of fresh presidential election arising under article 140(3) of the Constitution.
The applicant contended that the conduct of fresh presidential election arising under article 140(3) of the Constitution was a matter of great public interest to which joinder of the Attorney General as a defender of the public interest was critical. According to the applicant, the presidential electoral disputes normally raised constitutional questions of great public importance revolving around the interpretation and application of constitutional and legal principles and policy to a given disputed issue.
It was contended that having been involved as amicus curiae in the Raila Odinga, 2013 case where the issue of candidates to participate in a fresh presidential election was raised, and having been involved in post-2013 electoral legal reform as affirmed by the Court in the case of Raila Odinga & Another vs. IEBC & 2 Others, the Attorney General was in a special position to assist the Court in making a determination on the issue. It was argued that the Applicant had the relevant expertise to assist the Court to make a determination on the pointed issues by placing relevant material and research before the Court.
|Case Outcome:||Notice of Motion seeking Orders for the Attorney-General to appear as amicus curiae denied|
|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|