Automated Summary
Key Facts
The High Court of Kenya dismissed an appeal by Boniface Kiarie Gitagia challenging the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission's (IEBC) decision to disqualify him as a senatorial candidate in Trans Nzoia County. The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the Constitution and Election Act do not provide a right to appeal IEBC decisions, and such challenges must be pursued via judicial review. The ruling emphasized that election court proceedings are governed strictly by statutory frameworks, and the court cannot arrogate jurisdiction beyond what is conferred by law.
Issues
The core issue was whether the High Court could entertain an appeal from the IEBC's quasi-judicial decision under constitutional provisions (Article 22 on human rights and Article 65 on unlimited jurisdiction). The court held that silence in the Constitution and Election Act on appeals from IEBC decisions meant jurisdiction did not exist, rendering the appeal incompetent.
Holdings
The High Court determined that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal from the IEBC's decision. The court cited constitutional and statutory provisions (Article 88(4)(e) and Section 74 of the Election Act) as silent on appeal rights against IEBC decisions, concluding that such jurisdiction does not exist. The appeal was struck out as incompetent with no orders as to costs.
Remedies
The appeal is found to be incompetent and is hereby struck out with no orders as to costs.
Legal Principles
- The ruling reinforced that election petitions are statutory proceedings governed exclusively by the Elections Act and Constitution. The court held that common law principles do not apply to election matters, citing precedents which confirm that courts must act within the framework set by legislation when dealing with election disputes.
- The High Court held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the IEBC's decision because the Constitution and statutes do not provide for such appeals. The court emphasized that jurisdiction must be conferred by law and cannot be self-arrogated, citing Supreme Court decisions which established that courts must strictly adhere to their statutory authority.
Precedent Name
- Samuel Kamau Macharia & Anor vs Kenya Commercial Bank & 2 Other
- Jyoti Basu & Others v Debi Ghosi & Others
- Moses Wasike Wetangula v Musakari Nazi Kombo & others
- Kelvin Oselu Obondo vs The Orange Democratic Movement & 2 Others
- John Ndirangu Kariuki vs Commission on Administration of Justice & Another
Cited Statute
- Constitution of Kenya
- Elections Act
Judge Name
L. A. Achode
Passage Text
- Having considered the foregoing decisions I agree with Lesiit and Muchelule JJ that the only conclusion to be drawn from the silence of the Constitution and the Statute on matters of appeal from the IEBC is that such jurisdiction does not exist. The High Court therefore does not have jurisdiction in the aforesaid matter. Without jurisdiction I cannot entertain this appeal. In the premise this appeal is found to be incompetent and is hereby struck out with no orders as to costs.
- "An Election petition is not an action at Common Law, nor in Equity. It is a statutory proceeding to which neither the Common Law nor the principles of Equity apply but only those rules which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it. Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain strangers to election law unless statutorily embodied. A court has no right to resort to them on considerations of alleged policy because policy in such matters, as those relating to the trial of election disputes, is what the statute lays down. In the trial of election disputes, the court is put in a strait jacket."
- "A court's jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law. We agree with counsel for the first and second respondents in his submission that the issue as to whether a court of law has jurisdiction to entertain a matter before it, is not one of mere procedural technicality; it goes to the very heart of the matter, for without jurisdiction, the court cannot entertain any petition that was before it. The issues could only be determined by an election court in a petition properly presented before such court."