Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves a dispute over the nomination for a Member of County Assembly position in Masogo-Nyangoma Ward, Muhoroni Constituency, Kisumu County. Applicant James Joram Apudo was initially awarded a nomination certificate by the 2nd Respondent (National Elections Board, DAP-K) on April 19, 2022. Subsequently, the 2nd Respondent issued another nomination certificate to 3rd Respondent Collins Omondi Awendo on April 9, 2022. The Applicant claimed this violated his legitimate expectation based on WhatsApp group minutes (April 11, 2022) confirming his nomination as the sole candidate in good standing. The Tribunal found that the respondents breached the Applicant's legitimate expectation and right to fair administrative action by issuing conflicting certificates. It quashed the 3rd Respondent's nomination and declared the Applicant the valid nominee, ordering the party to forward his name to IEBC for the August 9, 2022 elections.
Issues
- The Applicant's case hinged on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, seeking to prove that the Tribunal should grant the orders to nullify the 3rd Respondent's nomination and uphold his own as the duly certified nominee for the Member of County Assembly position.
- The Tribunal considered cost allocation, noting the parties' shared political affiliation and desire to encourage harmony, resulting in an order that each party bear its own costs despite the Applicant's uncontroverted allegations.
Holdings
- The Tribunal found that the 1st and 2nd Respondents violated the Applicant's legitimate expectation and right to fair administrative action by awarding a nomination certificate to the 3rd Respondent for the Member of County Assembly seat in Masogo Nyangoma Ward, Muhoroni Constituency, Kisumu County.
- The Tribunal ruled that each party shall bear its own costs in the matter, citing the need to encourage harmony and democratization within the political party family.
- The Tribunal declared the Applicant as the duly nominated person to represent the 1st Respondent's ticket for the Member of County Assembly seat in Masogo Nyangoma Ward, Muhoroni Constituency, Kisumu County in the August 9th 2022 elections.
- The Tribunal allowed the complaint and quashed the 2nd Respondent's decision to issue a nomination certificate to the 3rd Respondent for the Member of County Assembly position in Masogo Nyangoma Ward, Muhoroni Constituency, Kisumu County.
- The Tribunal ordered the 1st Respondent to forward the Applicant's name to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) as the duly nominated person to vie for the Member of County Assembly position in Masogo Nyangoma Ward, Muhoroni Constituency, Kisumu County.
Remedies
- Each party is ordered to bear its own costs in the matter.
- The 1st Respondent is ordered to forward the Applicant's name to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) as the duly nominated person for the Member of County Assembly position in Masogo Nyangoma Ward.
- The Tribunal allows the complaint and quashes the 2nd Respondent's decision to issue a nomination certificate to the 3rd Respondent for the Member of County Assembly position in Masogo Nyangoma Ward, Muhoroni Constituency, Kisumu County.
- The Applicant is declared the duly nominated person to represent the 1st Respondent for the Member of County Assembly position in Masogo Nyangoma Ward, Muhoroni Constituency, Kisumu County in the August 9th 2022 elections.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal applied the doctrine of legitimate expectation to determine the rightful candidate for the Masogo-Nyangoma Ward nomination, finding that the Applicant had a reasonable and lawful expectation created by the political party's prior representations and actions.
Precedent Name
- R vs CLE & 2 others ex parte Michelle
- Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 Others v Royal Media Services & 5 Others
Cited Statute
- Election Laws (Amendment) Acts
- Political Parties Act, No 11 of 2011
- Elections Act, 2011
- Elections (General) Regulations 2017
Judge Name
- Hon. Walubengo Sifuna
- Hon. Fatuma Ali
- Hon. Dr. Wilfred Mutubwa OGW C. Arb
Passage Text
- "It is not enough that an expectation should exist; it must in addition be legitimate.... First of all, for an expectation to be legitimate it must be founded upon a promise or practice by the public authority that is said to be bound to fulfil the expectation.... Second, clear statutory words, of course, override an expectation howsoever founded.... Third, the notification of a relevant change of policy destroys any expectation founded upon the earlier policy...."
- "Legitimate expectation would arise when a body, by representation or by past practice, has aroused an expectation that is within its power to fulfil. Therefore, for an expectation to be legitimate, it must be founded upon a promise or practice by public authority that is expected to fulfil the expectation."
- We, therefore, hold that the 1st and 2nd Respondents violated the Applicant's legitimate expectation as well as his right to fair administrative action, by awarding a nomination certificate to the 3rd Respondent.