Joel Nyabuto Omwenga & 2 others v IEBC & another [2013] KEMC 68 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan election court ruled that the party who brings an election petition has the right to make final submissions first, not the respondents.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Civil Procedure Act and Rules apply to election petitions
- 2.Whether the petitioners have the right to submit first after the close of the petition hearing
- 3.Whether it is the exception and not the rule for the respondents to begin the submissions
- 4.Whether the Elections Act provides the rules on presentation of evidence and specifically the right to submit first
Key legal issues
#Applicability of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules to election petitions
The Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply to election petitions except where expressly provided, as in Rule 12(6) of the Petition Rules
Relying on Karauri, Ahmed vs Twaha, Murathe and Mbuzi vs Omar, and the High Court decision in Kabuti v Kingola, the court held that the Elections Act is a self-contained regime and election courts have inherent powers to decide cases without undue regard to technicalities. Rule 12(6) is an express statutory exception incorporating Order 19 and the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act for affidavits only.
Right to begin final submissions after close of hearing
The petitioners, as the parties who alleged and bore the burden of proving the case, have the right to submit first; the respondents then respond, with the petitioners replying on points of law
The court noted the pre-trial conference of 15-16 May 2013 had already settled the sequence of submissions. Applying the principle 'he who alleges must prove' and the overriding objective of the Petition Rules, it held Order 18 was not intended to upset the natural order of proceedings, and it would be absurd for a respondent to submit first where they are not the mover of the motion.
Legal principles established
#- Election petitions are statutory proceedings governed by their own rules; the Civil Procedure Act and Rules apply only where expressly provided by statute
- An election court has discretion to determine the order of final submissions in accordance with the Constitution, the Elections Act and its rules
- A respondent should not ordinarily submit first in a matter they did not move
Court orders
#- 1.The petitioners reserve the right to make their final submissions first
- 2.The respondents will thereafter respond to the petitioners' submissions
- 3.The petitioners will reserve the right to respond to the respondents' submissions on points of law and address any issue raised about case law
- 4.Parties reminded of the overriding objectives of the Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petition Rules 2013
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 80 of the Elections Act (powers of an election court); Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petition Rules, 2013
Relief refused
#1st respondent's application to have the first right of audience in oral submissions
The issue of submissions had already been settled at pre-trial conference, and the Civil Procedure Rules do not apply to election petitions except where expressly provided
Costs
No costs order made
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is therefore the decision of this court that the petitioners reserve the right to make their final submissions first in order to wrap up their case.
Election petitions are unique and separate from other proceedings and the civil procedure does not apply except where expressly provided for
It would be absurd for the respondent to submit first in any matter where he is not the mover of the motion.
This court reserves the discretion to determine who submits first and do so in accordance with the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and Elections Act and rules.
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.
Issues in the judgment
#Title of the Petition Rules quoted inconsistently in the final order ('Elections (Parliamentary and Courts Election) Petition Rules 2013') versus earlier correct reference ('Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petition Rules, 2013')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joel Nyabuto Omwenga & 2 others v IEBC & another [2013] KEMC 68 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2013). Not stated in judgment (Election Petition, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2013/68/eng@2013-07-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.