BY SAM ALFAN.
Attempts by Wiper Democratic Party leader Kalonzo Musyoka’s candidate to suspend a ruling denying her a chance to join the electoral body’s selection panel has suffered a blow after a judge declined to halt the process.
Kalonzo’s candidate, Dr Koki Muli rushed to the High Court seeking to suspend the Politicial Parties Tribunal decision that found Dr Augustus Kyalo Muli was duly elected to represent the Azimio La Umoja Coalition in the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) selection panel.
However, Justice Janet Mulwa declined to grant her temporary order, blocking Dr Kyalo from assuiming the position, pending the determination of the appeal.
The judge, instead, directed the case to be heard on September 19.
“The motion is certified as urgent. I decline to issue ex-parte orders of stay of execution of the PPDT judgement at this stage,” said the judge.
In the decision last week, the tribunal presided by Dr. Wilfred Mutubwa, Gad Gathu and Theresa Chepkwony ruled that any list forwarded to President William Ruto for appointment to the panel, without Dr Kyalo’s name was void.
“Considering all evidence and arguments presented, this Tribunal finds that Dr. Augustus Kyalo Muli, was validly elected to represent the minority party/coalition of parties on the IEBC selection panel,” ruled Tribunal.
Dr Koki said in her appeal that the tribunal’s decision is a nullity and contrary to the dictates of the constitution. She said the decision was unreasonable and against the tenets of legality and the principles of fair administrative action.
She said the tribunal settled on a stranger to represent the Azimio La Umoja One Kenya Coalition, whose political party is not a parliamentary party.
Dr Koki said the slot is specifically reserved for a coalition political party in the IEBC selection panel.
She said the Tribunal has wrongfully and illegally usurped the role of the Azimio Coalition by substituting its decision and picking a stranger to represent party in the panel.
She added that the Tribunal wrongfully and acted in excess of jurisdiction by purporting to entertain, hear and determine the dispute in question as it exceeded its mandate and jurisdiction as espoused under Section 40 of the Political Parties Act as read with the provisions of the Fair Administrative Actions Act on the exhaustion of local remedies before invoking the Court’s jurisdiction.
“The Tribunal misapprehended the facts and the law and reached an erroneous conclusion thus resulting to a violation of the Applicants/Appellants right to a fair hearing and trial,” Azimio coalition said in the appeal.
