Previous 3 / 31 Next

of objections to the Complainant's chamber summons was filed and served on him on the same day it was heard, to wit, 9 October 2007 and he had not been afforded enough time to prepare his response to the objections. 8. On the same day, 9 October 2007, the High Court dismissed the Complainant's chamber application of 8 October 2007 because it was frivolous, vexatious, and scandalous, and amounted to abuse of court process. The Complainant sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of the chamber application. The court refused permission and decided to proceed on 30 October 2007 with further hearing on the preliminary objections to the substantive matter as raised by the respondents on 27 Ju:ne 2007. 9. In view of the High Court's refusal to granthim leave to appeal the ruling on his chamber application, the Complainant took two steps: :firstly, he applied by motion for leave from the Court of Appeal to appe'af againstthe High Court's ruling on his chamber application. The motion was lodged witli. the Court of Appeal on 23 October 2007 and ., registered as Court of Appeal Civil Application No . NAI 260 of2007 (UR 160 of20O7). Secondly, theComplainanh,n a'fe an application to the Court of Appeal for orders to stay the ruling of 9 October 2007 and thus restrain the High Court from proceeding with the further hearing then scheduled to proceed on 30 October 2007: Thi~ .s~condapplication was registered as Court of Appeal Civil Application No: NA1261 of 2007 (UR 161 of 2007). 10. Following the hearing on 30 October ,2007, on 7 December 2007 High Court dismissed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22 of 2004 based on the preliminary objectiqns raised by the respondents. The Complainant sought, and the High Court granted, leave to appeal to Court of Appeal against the High Court's ruling of:7 l)eceITlber 2007. He states that the Registrar did not provide him with the certifiec;lcopies of the record of the proceedings and the ruling in question, and as a result he only managed to lodge the appeal in the Court of Appeal on 18 December 2QOtt The appeal was registered as Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 266 of 2008. 11. Further, on 21 December 2007 he lodged an application before the Court of Appeal seeking orders staying the execution of the High Court ruling of 7 December 2007 which dismissed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 22 of 2004. This application for stay of execution was registered as Court of Appeal Civil Application No. NAI 320 of2007 (UR 220 of2007). 12. The Complainant states that despite the urgency of Court of Appeal Civil J;.pt-6.tl-:-:::~-:--. . No. 266 of 2008, the Chief Justice stalled it until around 5 March 200~ 9/✓ //.~ ·~· ·E!Rh@":;~-~~,, .,,</ (J reluctantly allowed it to be set down for hearing on 9 June 2009. On rp;,e ,s-nw ~~--- . ~ \ .I ,·f 'j} J n ·t· ru' ge , ~, , ~' ~ ili 4 ~U-UA '5-6, p 1' .,,_13 ~ <1 'v-1 ~v· , b4" "'R1c41N£ oe <;.,' ~TDf.SP~e~

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
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

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

Primary Documents

Notifications