Speaker of the County Assembly of Meru v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & another
The bottom line
#The Supreme Court paused a major election-eligibility case because the applicant skipped the required step of first seeking the Attorney General's advice.
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 Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission should be admitted as proposed interveners in the Reference
- 2.Whether the advice of the Attorney General should be sought before the Court proceeds with the Reference
Key legal issues
#Whether seeking the Attorney General's advice before filing a Reference under Article 163(6) is mandatory
While not strictly a matter of law, as a matter of due process an applicant must resort to the Attorney General first; failure without justification warrants rejection or deferral of the Reference under Rule 53(c)
The Court reiterated its prior decisions (Siaya County Speaker, National Gender and Equality Commission, Kericho and Nandi Counties) that resort to the Attorney General's office is a due-process prerequisite. Rule 53(c) permits rejection of a reference resolvable by the AG's advice where that advice has not been sought. The applicant's concession that advice was deliberately not sought left no justification.
Whether the Martha Karua exception applied to excuse the applicant from seeking the Attorney General's advice
The Martha Karua exception did not apply because that case involved the Attorney General as applicant, who could not advise itself; the present applicant is the Speaker of a county assembly
In Martha Karua the Court held it absurd to require the AG's office to seek a legal opinion from itself, since the AG filed that reference under article 156(4)(a) and (b). Here the applicant is a different office entirely, the devolution framework does not bar the AG from advising, and the matter is of public interest, so the exception is inapplicable and the applicant's reliance on the case was misguided.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant under Article 163(6) must, as a matter of due process, seek the Attorney General's advice before filing a Reference, unless the matter falls within an exception such as the Martha Karua case where the Attorney General was itself the applicant
- The devolution system does not preclude the Attorney General from giving advice in matters of public interest, including matters concerning county assemblies
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant is directed to seek the Hon. Attorney General's advice, and such advice is to be given within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Ruling
- 2.The matter be thereafter mentioned before the Deputy Registrar of the Court to confirm compliance with the directions
- 3.There shall be no order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(6) of the Constitution of Kenya (advisory opinion jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Immediate hearing of the application to admit the proposed interveners and the Reference
The applicant failed to first seek the Attorney General's advice as required by Rule 53(c) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020 and the Court's established practice
Costs
There shall be no order as to costs.
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.
We therefore find no justification for the applicant's failure to seek the Attorney General's advice in this case and his reliance on the Martha Karua case is obviously misguided.
The applicant is directed to seek the Hon. Attorney General's advice, and such advice is to be given within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Ruling.
There shall be no order as to costs.
the matter in respect of which the reference is made can, in the opinion of the court, be resolved by the advice of the Attorney General, and such advice has not been sought.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Speaker of the County Assembly of Meru v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & another", Case Analysis (2026). Reference E001 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2026/57/eng@2026-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.