Previous 1 / 31 Next

Communication 432/12 Peter Odiwuor Ngoge v Republic of Kenya Summary of Complainant 1. The Communication was submitted to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) by Peter Odiwuor Ngoge (the Complainant) against the Republic of Kenya (the Respondent State). The Republic of Kenya is a State Party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Charter). 1 2. The Complainant states that he is a lawyer. He wa,s duly ap.mitted to the Kenyan ' .·! bar in 2001. He is a member of the Law Society of Kenya "and the East African Law Society. He practices law privately under the .firm.<na~e 1i¥/SJ).P. Ngoge & Associates" in Nairobi, Kenya. 3. He avers that in 2003 when the Respondent State's 9th Parliament which had just been elected and was due to elect its Speaker, he applied to be elected as Speaker. However, his appLication wa~ blocked from reaching the floor of Parliament for ; ' ', consideration and another candidate was declared Speaker of the 9th Parliament of the Respondent State on 9 January 2003. . . 4. On 23 May 2003 he sought leave of the court in High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 554/2003 for judici;at ;review to issue against the decision of the Clerk of Parliament ,declari9g :the other candidate as Speaker of the 9th Parliament of the Republic of Kenya. On 20 June 2003 the High Court declined jurisdiction and dismissed the application for leave to commence judicial review. He was not happy with the ruling, and he insinuated that the judge was acting on instructions to shield the respondent. The judge summarily convicted him of contempt and sen,tenced him to imprisonment for one week. 5. On 12 January 2004, after his release from prison, he commenced fresh court proceedings by Originating Summons under section 84(1) of the Constitution of the Respondent State challenging the legality/ constitutionality of the purported appointment of the then Speaker and allowing the latter to continue serving as Speaker of the 9th Parliament. The matter was registered as High Court Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22 of 2004. The suits was filed against five respondents: the then Speaker whose election he was challenging; /> "\:sCCRtr .... /o'I 4'(., ~•!,,\ the_. F~t:fJft.oL:t~_ /? ®•, \~ t ~\~,i,,('~~;.ts 1, ', ' The Repu blicof Kenya rntifie~ tl,e Cha,te, on 23 Janua,y 1992 and the Omle,. , <,; 4 11.jJ : :J , ,t:' r- 4 "I, 'O "l : 0,,,cA,NF. oc.s °,.,, I p . -'::-"' R-o "' "'

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 432/12 – Peter Odiwuor Ngoge v Republic of Kenya

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Elections / Referendums
Equality
Equality Before the Law
Participation in Government
Personal Liberty
Right to be Heard before a Competent Court
Right to Fair Trial

Case Head Notes: The Complainant states that, in 2003, he applied to be elected as Speaker of Parliament. However, his application was blocked, and another candidate was declared speaker. The Complainant sought leave for judicial review and, after the application was dismissed, the Complainant insinuated that the judge was acting on instruction to shield the Respondent. Consequently, the judge convicted him of contempt and sentenced him to one week imprisonment. In 2004 the Complainant commenced new proceedings and the matter was certified for urgent hearing. However, the Complainant states that the Chief Justice deliberately stalled the hearing of the matter. The Complainant also, in ensuing litigation attempts, brought up concerns regarding the participation of various members of the Respondents, and, in 2012, he states that one of the two judges of the Supreme Court, who dismissed his application, was a member of Parliament, when he applied to be elected Speaker, and that, therefore, she sat as a judge in her own cause in dismissing the appeal. The Commission found no violation of Article 3 because they state that, at all times, the Complainant enjoyed unfettered access to the law and courts and that his personal dissatisfaction cannot amount to legal grounds to conclude that his right to equality before the law was violated. The Commission found no violation of Article 5 because they could not find any evidence that state officials intentionally inflicted psychological pain or suffering on the Complainant, and they did not consider the facts relied on by the Complainant to be an attack on his inherent dignity. The Commission found no violation of Article 6 because there was no breach of Article 6 identified, and the Commission cannot find a violation for perceived future conduct. The Commission found no violation of Article 7 because they state that the Complainant did not suffer any substantial prejudice that could support a claim, and that the allegations of procedural irregularity in prosecuting his appeal do not amount to a denial of access to justice. Noting that the Complainant freely participated in the elections for Speaker of Parliament, the Commission found no violation of Article 13. The Commission stated that the contention that the Complainant was entitled to a fresh election was without merit, and that, allowing the Complainant to appoint his own date to contest in the election would amount to nullifying the will expressed by the people of the Respondent State. The Commission found no violation of Articles 19, 22, and 24 because the facts on which those allegations are based were outside the scope of issues on which the original complaint was based.

Country

Kenya

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Jun 3, 2024

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 13.1: Right to participate freely in government
ACHPR 13.2: Right of equal access to the public service of the country
ACHPR 13.3: Right of access to public property and services
ACHPR 19: Right of All Peoples to Equality and Rights
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 27.1: Duties towards family and society, the State and other legally recognized communities
ACHPR 27.2: Obligations of individuals when exercising rights and freedoms
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
ACHPR 6 : Right to Personal Liberty and Protection from Arbitrary Arrest
ACHPR 9.2: Right to Express and Disseminate Opinions Within the law

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 1: General Obligations
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 19: Right of All Peoples to Equality and Rights
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 22: Peoples' Right to Economic, Social and Cultural Development
ACHPR 24: Right to a General Satisfactory Environment
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Duration of Procedure

Oct 2, 2012 ~ Jun 3, 2024

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -0.023559

Longitude: 37.906193

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): Kenya

Primary Documents

(432-12) Peter Odiwuor Ngoge v Kenya.pdf
Other
ML TOC
Download View