text:
Amendment Acts
Laws Of Devolution
Search Handsard Archive
KLR Journal
Election Petitions
Advanced Search mode is suitable for finding a particular case when you have details that describe the case at hand e.g. (names of parties, case number, case year etc).
To find a case according to its meta data (names of parties, case number, and date of delivery, case year etc) one need not fill in all the fields. You may use any one or more search criteria; search using whatever information you have..
Election Petition Appeal 89 of 2017
Please Wait. Searching ...
Download: PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML Show Metadata
Tom Odege v Edick Peter Omondi Ayanga & 2 others [2017] eKLR
Case Metadata
Tom Odege v Edick Peter Omondi Anyanga, Orange Democratic Movement Paty & Fredrick Ogenga
Date Delivered:
Case Class:
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Case Action:
Judge(s):
George Vincent Odunga
Mr Okongo for the applicant Mr Ligunya for the appellant Mr Amuga for the 1st Respondent
Court Division:
1. Bichage, Chris Munga N v Richard Nyagaka Tongi & 2 others Civil Application No 39 of 2013 – (Mentioned)
2. Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal [1982] KLR 417 – (Mentioned)
3. Charterhouse Bank Limited v Central Bank of Kenya & another Civil Application No 200 of 2006 – (Mentioned)
4. Gitirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 others Petition No 2B of 2014 – (Followed)
5. IL Nwesi Company Limited & 2 others v Wendy Martin Civil Application No 291 of 2010 – (Explained)
6. In re Timothy Riziki Hopkins Civil Application No 194 of 2008 – (Mentioned)
7. Kihara, Samuel Ndiba & another v Housing Finance Company of Kenya Limited & another Civil Application No 11 of 2007 – (Mentioned)
8. Kipkalya Kiprono Kones v Republic & others Ex Parte Kimani Wanyoike [2006] 2 EA 158; [2006] 2 KLR 226; [2008] 3 KLR (EP) 291 – (Explained)
9. Madhupaper International Limited v Ken [1985] KLR 840 – (Mentioned)
10. Mangungu v National Bank of Commerce Ltd [2007] 2 EA 285 – (Explained)
11. Mutua, Alfred v Ethics & Anti-corruption Commission & 4 others Civil Application No 31 of 2016 – (Followed)
12. Obado, Zacharia Okoth v Edward Akong'o Oyugi & 2 others Civil Appeal (Application) 39 of 2013 – (Explained)
13. Samvir Trustee Limited v Guardian Bank Limited Civil Case No 795 of 1997 – (Explained)
14. Suleiman v Amboseli Resort Limited [2004] 2 KLR 589
15. Teachers Service Commission v Simon P Kamau & 19 others Application No 38 of 2014 – (Mentioned)
16. Universal Petroleum Services Limited v BP Tanzania Limited [2006] 1 EA 486 – (Explained)
17. Vishram Ravji Halai v Thornton & Turpin [1990] KLR 365 – (Mentioned)
1. Econet Wireless Limited v Econet Wireless Nigeria Ltd & another [FHC/KD/CS/39/208] – (Followed)
2. United Cement Company of Nigeria v Dangote Industries Ltd & Minister of Solid Mineral Development [CA/A/165/2005] – (Explained)
1. Bell v Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica [1985] 2 All ER 594 – (Mentioned)
2. Erinford Properties Ltd v Cheshire County International Limited [1974] 2 All ER 448 – (Mentioned)
3. R (H) v Ashworth Hospital Authority [2003] WLR 127 – (Explained)
4. Republic v Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Avon County Council (No 2) CA (1991) 1 All ER 282 – (Explained)
1. Civil Procedure Act (cap 21) sections 1A, 1B – (Interpreted)
2. Civil Procedure Rules (cap 21 Sub Leg) order 41 rule 6, 42 rule 6(2) – (Interpreted)
3. Constitution of Kenya, 2010 articles 1(1 – 3); 20; 21; 27; 38; 47; 95 – (Interpreted)
4. Court of Appeal Rules (cap 9 Sub Leg) rule 75(1) – (Interpreted)
5. Elections (General) Regulations, 2012 (Act No 24 of 2011 Sub Leg) regulation 14 – (Interpreted)
6. Elections Act, 2011(Act No 24 of 2011) section 13 – (Interpreted)
1. Mr Okongo for the Applicant
2. Miss Fundi for Mr Ligunya for the Appellant
3. Mr Madialo for Mr Amuga for the 1st Respondent
History Advocates:
Both Parties Represented
Case Outcome:
Petition ordered
The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MILIMANI
ELECTION PETITION APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2017
TOM ODEGE.................................................................................APPELLANT
HON. EDICK PETER OMONDI ANYANGA.........................1ST RESPONDENT
ORANGE DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT
PARTY………………………..........….…….….2ND RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
FREDRICK OGENGA………………..........………………….3RD RESPONDENT
1. On 31st May, 2017 this Court (Kimaru, J) delivered a judgement in this appeal in which he issued the following orders:
2. The proceedings that gave rise to the said decision arose from the party primaries carried out by the Orange Democratic Party (hereinafter referred to as "the Party").
3. It would seem that the said party made a false start as a result of which its own internal dispute resolution forum, the National Appeals Tribunal, nullified its attempt at identifying its flag bearer. The party was accordingly directed to restart the process. The Party however proceeded to nominate the appellant herein, Tom Mboya Odege (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant"), as its flag bearer. Subsequent to the decision of the NAT, the 1st Respondent herein, Hon. Edick Peter Omondi Anyanga, challenged the decision of the NAT before the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal which vide its decision of 9th May, 2017, nullified a certificate of nomination issued Fredrick Ogenga and compelled the Party to issue a certificate of nomination to the 1st Respondent. It is however alleged that the Appellant herein was never made a party to the said proceedings.
4. Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant appealed to this Court and vide his decision of 31st May, 2017, Kimaru, J issued the following orders:
1. The appeal lodged by the appellant cannot be allowed. It is for dismissal.
2. The nominee for Orange Democratic Movement Party for Nyatike Constituency is the 1st Respondent, Edick Peter Omondi Anyanga and the nomination certificate issued to him by the Orange Democratic Movement Party is the only valid nomination certificate which shall be received by e Independent Elections and Boundaries Commission (IEBZ).
3. The nomination certificate that was issued to the Appellant contrary to the orders of Orange Democratic Party's National Appeals Tribunal and the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal is hereby cancelled and is declared null and void. It shall have no legal effect whatsoever.
5. The Party is aggrieved by the said decision and has filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal. In the meantime vide the Notice of Motion dated 2nd June, 2017,the Party seeks that pending the hearing and determination of the intended appeal, this Court should grant a stay of the following of its orders:
a. The order that nominee for the Orange Democratic Party for Nyatike Constituency is the 1st Respondent, Edick Peter Omondi Anyanga.
b. The order that the nomination certificate issued to Edick Peter Omondi Anyanga by the Orange Democratic Movement Party is the only valid nomination certificate which shall be received by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)
c. The nomination certificate that was issued to the Appellant contrary to the orders of Orange Democratic Movement Party's National Appeals Tribunal and the Political Parties Disputed Tribunal is hereby cancelled and is declared null and void and shall have no legal effect whatsoever.
d. The nomination certificate that was issued to the Appellant contrary to the orders of Orange Democratic Movement Party's National Appeals Tribunal and the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal shall have no legal effect whatsoever, pending herein and determination of an intended appeal to the Court of Appeal
Applicant's Case
6. According to the Applicant, on or about the 24th day of April 2017, the Party convened and held the Party Nominations exercise, for all the Counties, National Assembly and Wards and more particularly, for Nyatike Constituency (hereinafter referred to as "the Constituency") pursuant to which the appellant herein was duly nominated as the ODM candidate for the Constituency Assembly Seat. It was averred that upon the nomination process, herein as the duly nominated candidate for Nyatike Constituency, National Assembly Seat, the Party, prepared and issued a nomination certificate to and in favour of the Petitioner and having been lawfully and validly nominated the appellant as the candidate for, the Appellant herein was/is the only lawful and legitimate candidate authorized and mandated to present his Nomination papers to IEBC and had his name was forwarded as the candidate to the IEBC on 16th May 2017 in terms of section 13 of the Elections Act as read with Regulations 14 of the Elections (General) Regulations.
7. It was averred that in line and in accordance with the Nomination of the Appellant, the Applicant duly prepared pursuant to Regulation 14 of the Elections (General) Regulations a party list which included the name of the appellant and thereafter forwarded the name to IEBC as the duly nominated candidate to contest at the elections on the Party ticket for Nyatike Constituency.
8. According to the applicant, in issuing the orders sought to be challenged in the intended appeal, , this court has visited an apparent fraud and occasioned a miscarriage of justice against the Applicant and her nominee, the Appellant. It was averred that the 2nd Respondent has 3 all forged nomination certificates which he alleges to have been issued to him by the applicant. The applicant was therefore apprehensive that courtesy of the said orders, her nominee will miss a slot at the elections as he is likely not to present his papers courtesy of the said orders while it is the lawful and statutory mandate of the applicant to nominate a candidate. To the Party, the Appellant' who is the only valid nominee of the Applicant is likely to be restrained from presenting his nomination credentials and IEBC is likely to accept nomination papers from the 1st Respondent as ODM candidate in Nyatike Constituency using a forged certificate of nomination which the court has without jurisdiction validated.
9. It was averred that the applicant was not aware that anyone has challenged her decision made on 29th April 2017 to nominate the Appellant before any forum and or that any adverse orders against him had been issued except in these proceedings. It was however aware that the 1st Respondent herein had filed proceedings against one Fredrick Ogenga who is now an independent candidate and obtained some orders but in proceedings which the appellant was not a party to. It was reiterated that the 1st Respondent holds 3 forged and fraudulent certificates of nomination and had not been validly and duly nominated by the applicant as the Party Nominee for Nyatike Constituency.
10. It was the Party's case that pursuant to the present orders now sought to be stayed, the appellant, who is the applicants only and legitimate nominee, herein risks being barred and/or prohibited from presenting his nomination papers for purposes of clearance and issuance of a certificate of nomination and risks being looked out of the intended elections for Nyatike Constituency National Assembly Seat. On the other hand, the 2nd Respondents even before the said orders had been issued had conspired and/or colluded with the officials at IEBC and manipulated and interfered with the Applicants party list. To the Party, the actions and/or omissions of the 2nd Respondents in collusion with the IEBC, now validated by this court in the orders now sought to be stayed are calculated to deny and/or deprive the applicant of her accrued and legitimate political rights, having been validly nominated the Appellant, to present a candidate for Nyatike Parliamentary Seat. It was contended that the orders now sought to be stayed were issued without jurisdiction and on no evident at all. Besides, the orders of this court condones impunity complained of constitutes an aid to the 1st Respondent to, with flagrant impunity force himself as a candidate.
11. It was therefore the Party's contention that the Applicant herein is likely to be mistreated and/or unfairly treated by and/or at the instance of the orders in aid of the 1st Respondent who have shown and indicated that he can nominate himself and manipulate the entire process.
12. It was contended that unless stay is granted, the Applicant stands to suffer substantial loss which cannot be adequately be compensated in damages and the rights to nominate a candidate shall have been lost permanently in relation to this election and it will be irreversible. To the Party, as a result of the foregoing, it is on the verge of being disfranchised and denied and/or deprived of the Constitutional Rights provided and captured under the provisions of Article 38 of the Constitution 2010 to present a duly nominated candidate for the Constituency National Assembly Seat.
13. The Party asserted that in view of the foregoing, the orders sought to be stayed, have aided the 2nd respondent to corruptly and with impunity take away the applicant's statutory duty and mandate to nominate a candidate and on the other hand has aided and/or abetted the denial of the Party's candidate, the Appellant's constitutional rights under Article 20, 21, 27, 38 & 47 of the Constitutions, 2010 to participate at the elections scheduled for 8th August, 2017.
14. The Party expressed its readiness and willingness to avail security in the manner which this court shall demand and impose if necessary.
15. In support of the Party's case, Miss Oduor, learned counsel, submitted that once a political party nominates its candidate the only circumstances that can lead to the change of the candidate is in case of death, incapacity and violation of the Election Code of Conduct. While reiterating the foregoing it was submitted that where the certificate was issued to the Appellant on 29th May, 2017, the one purportedly issued to the 1st Respondent was issued on 12th May, 2017 hence the latter certificate cannot stand unless the earlier one is nullified.
16. It was averred that the Party had demonstrated through its officials that it did not sign the certificate allegedly issued to the 1st Respondent which ought to have been interrogated by way of evidence from the experts as opposed to the opinion of the Judge. It was further averred that the said evidence was in any case submitted by the 1st Respondent in the absence of the other parties, an action which was irregular and unprocedural.
17. According to the learned counsel since the matter that gave rise to this appeal was an application for review, the Court ought to have considered whether the Political Parties Tribunal addressed its mind to the principles guiding applications for review. This, it was contended the Court failed to do.
18. It was also submitted that the Court ought to have considered the fact that at no point was the certificate issued to the Appellant questioned as the only certificate which was in contention was that of Fredrick Ogenga, the 3rd Respondent.
19. In support of the submissions, learned counsel relied on Gatirau Peter Munya vs. Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others [2014] eKLR and Chris Munga N. Bichage vs. Richard Nyagaka Tongi & 2 Others [2013] eKLR.
20. The application was supported by the 3rd Respondent who through his learned counsel, Miss Fundi, associated himself with the position adopted by the Party.
1st Respondnet's Case
21. The Application was opposed by the 1st Respondent.
22. According to the said Respondent, the allegation by Robert Arunga, that the Nomination certificate issued to him by applicant on 12th May 201 is a forgery, is false. In his averment, the said nomination certificate was handed over to him by non other than the chairperson of the Applicant's National Election Board, Hon. Judith Pareno, and he believed that the requisite signatories, including Robert Arunga, signed the Nomination Certificate hence their denial, at this stage is an afterthought and false.
23. It was averred that the only Nomination Certificate known to him is the one dated 12th May, 2017 which was issued to him by the Applicant in compliance with the orders of the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal after his Advocates served the order hence the purported Nomination Certificates dated 7th May, 2017 and 14th May, 2017 annexed to the affidavit of Robert Arunga are unknown to him and are a fraudulent creation by the Applicant's Officials with the sole purpose of tarnishing his name and misleading the Court.
24. The 1st Respondent contended that the allegation that the Nomination Certificate issued to him is a forgery came too late in the day and was only meant to deny him his right which has been confirmed by both the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal and this Court.
25. The 1st Respondent disclosed that after this Court made its decision on 31st May, 2017, he presented his Nomination Certificate to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) for clearance and has since been duly nominated by IEBC to the seat for Nyatike Constituency Member of National Assembly seat on the Applicant's ticket. According to him, before being cleared by the IEBC, the specimen signatures that the Applicant supplied to IEBC were considered against the signatures in the Nomination Certificate and had they been forged as alleged, he would not have been cleared.
26. It was therefore contended that the order of stay being sought would, if granted, render his nomination and the orders of both the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal and this court useless, with the result that the people of Nyatike Constituency who are members of ODM Party will be denied a chance to elect a candidate of their choice in the forthcoming general elections. The 1st Respondent insisted that he did not and cannot manipulate IEBC as alleged by the Applicant and the removal of the name of the Appellant from the ODM Party's list forwarded to IEBC must have been done in compliance with the orders of the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal and this Court.
27. It was therefore his position that the application herein is not only lacking in merit but has also been overtaken by events.
28. It was submitted on behalf of the said Respondent by his learned counsel, Mr Amuga, that the application is premised on the false impression that it was the appellant who was nominated by the Party. To the 3rd Respondent, the Party's nominee was in fact the 3rd Respondent while the appellant came third in the nominations. It was contended that after the nominations the appellant forgot about the nominations and did not challenge the results and that the results were only challenged by the 3rd Respondent.
29. It was averred that the decision of the National Appeals Tribunal was made on 29th April, 2017 by which the only nominee was deprived of the certificate, the certificate withdraw and fresh nominations ordered. It was therefore submitted that the contention that a proper nomination certificate was issued on 29th April, 2017 cannot be correct. It was submitted that contrary to the allegations by the Party, the Party was duly served and participated in the proceedings before the PPDT through counsel though the 3rd Respondent opted not to participate as he had decided to vie as an independent candidate.
30. It was submitted that it was after the judgement of 9th May, 2017 that the 1st Respondent was issued with the nomination certificate by the Chairperson of the Party's National Elections Board, Judy Pareno. It was however submitted that the PPDT to which the application for review was made dismissed the same provoking this appeal.
31. To the 1st Respondent, the Party has never challenged any of the decisions granting the certificate to the 1st Respondent. However in the intended appeal, the Party is now challenging the decision dismissing the appeal by the appellant who is not appealing against the same. To the 1st Respondent, the Party has no capacity to challenge the said decision.
32. It was submitted that the issue of forgery was raised for the first time in the appeal and from the bar.
33. It was the 1st Respondent's case that since the order of the Court has been complied with there is nothing to stay. It was further submitted that since the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission is not a party to these proceedings no order can be issued against it. According to the 1st Respondent the mere fact that a stay is granted will not nullify the decision sought to be appealed against hence the appellant will not be entitled to be nominated. The consequence would be that the Party will be left without a candidate and its members will be deprived of the opportunity of electing their representative. It was therefore submitted that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of dismissing the application.
34. According to the 1st Respondent no substantive loss would be occasioned even if the appeal succeeds since the said success would lead to nullification of the results. It was submitted that a successful party ought not to be deprived of the fruits of his success.
35. In support of his submission Mr Amuga relied on Teachers Service Commission vs. Simon P. Kamau & 19 Others [2015] eKLR and Gitirau Peter Munya vs. Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others [2014] eKLR.
36. I have considered the foregoing.
37. The 1st Respondent took issue with the fact that since the Party had not challenged any of the decisions in which the 1st Respondent was given the nomination certificate, it had no justification for challenging the decision of this Court. Rule 75(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules provides as follows:
Any person who desires to appeal to the Court shall give notice in writing, which shall be lodged in duplicate with the registrar of the superior court.
38. It is therefore clear that the right to file an appeal is given to any person who desires to appeal as opposed to a party who desires to appeal. In this case the Party was a party to the proceedings sought to be appealed against. Therefore even if one was to argue that only parties can lodge appeals, the Party would have been entitled as of right to appeal. I therefore do not see anything wrong with the Party giving a notice of its intention to appeal. Having given that notice, the Party is entitled to move this Court for orders of stay.
39. The principles guiding the grant of a stay of execution pending appeal are well settled. These principles are provided under Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules under which the court is to be satisfied that substantial loss may result to the applicant unless the order is made; that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; and that such security as the court orders for the due performance of such decree or order as may ultimately be binding on him has been given by the applicant. In Vishram Ravji Halai vs. Thornton & Turpin Civil Application No. Nai. 15 of 1990 [1990] KLR 365, the Court of Appeal held that whereas the Court of Appeal's power to grant a stay pending appeal is unfettered, the High Court's jurisdiction to do so under Order 41 rule 6 is fettered by three conditions namely, establishment of a sufficient cause, satisfaction of substantial loss and the furnishing of security. Further the application must be made without unreasonable delay. To the foregoing I would add that the stay may only be granted for sufficient cause and that the Court in deciding whether or not to grant the stay and that in light of the overriding objective stipulated in sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court is nolonger limited to the foregoing provisions.
40. Therefore the courts are now enjoined to give effect to the overriding objective in the exercise of their powers under the Act or in the interpretation of any of its provisions. According to section 1A(2) "the Court shall, in the exercise of its powers under this Act or the interpretation of any of its provisions, seek to give effect to the overriding objective" while under section 1B some of the aims of the said objective are; the just determination of the proceedings; the efficient disposal of the business of the Court; the efficient use of the available judicial and administrative resources; and the timely disposal of the proceedings, and all other proceedings in the Court, at a cost affordable by the respective parties.
41. It therefore follows that all the pre-Overriding Objective decisions must now be looked at in the light of the said provisions. This does not necessarily imply that all precedents are ignored but that the same must be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the said objective. What is expected of the Court is to ensure that the aims and intendment of the overriding objective as stipulated in section 1A as read with section 1B of the Civil Procedure Act are attained. It is therefore important that the Court takes into consideration the likely effect of granting the stay on the proceedings in question. In other words the Court ought to weigh the likely consequences of granting the stay or not doing so and lean towards a determination which is unlikely to lead to an undesirable or absurd outcome. What the Court ought to do when confronted with such circumstances is to consider the twin overriding principles of proportionality and equality of arms which are aimed at placing the parties before the Court on equal footing and see where the scales of justice lie considering the fact that it is the business of the court, so far as possible, to secure that any transitional motions before the Court do not render nugatory the ultimate end of justice. The Court, in exercising its discretion, should therefore always opt for the lower rather than the higher risk of injustice. See Suleiman vs. Amboseli Resort Limited [2004] 2 KLR 589.
42. Warsame, J (as he then was) was alive to this issue when in Samvir Trustee Limited vs. Guardian Bank Limited Nairobi (Milimani) HCCC 795 of 1997 he expressed himself as hereunder:
"Every party aggrieved with a decision of the High Court has a natural and undoubted right to seek the intervention of the Court of Appeal and the Court should not put unnecessary hindrance to the enjoyment and exercise of that right by the defendant. A stay would be overwhelming hindrance to the exercise of the discretionary powers of the court… The Court in considering whether to grant or refuse an application for stay is empowered to see whether there exist any special circumstances which can sway the discretion of the court in a particular manner. But the yardstick is for the court to balance or weigh the scales of justice by ensuring that an appeal is not rendered nugatory while at the same time ensuring that a successful party is not impeded from the enjoyment of the fruits of his judgement. It is a fundamental factor to bear in mind that, a successful party is prima facie entitled to the fruits of his judgement; hence the consequence of a judgement is that it has defined the rights of a party with definitive conclusion. The respondent is asserting that matured right against the applicant/defendant… At the stage of the application for stay of execution pending appeal the court must ensure that parties fight it out on a level playing ground and on equal footing in an attempt to safeguard the rights and interests of both sides. The overriding objective of the court is to ensure the execution of one party's right should not defeat or derogate the right of the other. The Court is therefore empowered to carry out a balancing exercise to ensure justice and fairness thrive within the corridors of the court. Justice requires the court to give an order of stay with certain conditions."
43. In IL Nwesi Company Limited & 2 Others vs. Wendy Martin Civil Application No. Nai. 291 of 2010 [2011] eKLR the Court of Appeal held that:
"Finally, the court has considered the provisions of sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act which the applicants have also invoked. These are fairly recent amendments in the law requiring that the court, in exercise of its powers or in the interpretation of the provisions of the Act, shall facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of the matters before it. Such is the overriding objective of the Act. There has, however, been considerable learning on the application of those provisions. The jurisdiction of the Court has been enhanced and its latitude expanded in order for the court to drive the civil process and to hold firmly the steering wheel of the process in order to attain the overriding objective and its principal aims. In the court's view, dealing with a case justly includes inter alia, reducing delay, and costs, expenses at the same time acting expeditiously and fairly. To operationalise or implement the overriding objective, in the court's view, calls for a new thinking and innovation and actively managing the cases before the court, including the granting of appropriate interim relief in deserving cases. That, however, is not to say that the new thinking totally uproots all well established principles or precedent in the exercise of the discretion of the court which is a judicial process devoid of whim and caprice. On the contrary, the amendment enriches those principles and emboldens the court to be guided by a broad sense of justice and fairness as it applies the principles."
44. Therefore this Court must guard against any action or inaction whose effect may remove pith of this litigation and leave only a shell as was appreciated by the Court of Appeal position in Dr Alfred Mutua vs. Ethics & Anti-corruption Commission & Others Civil Application No. Nai. 31 of 2016 in which it cited the Nigerian Court of Appeal decision of Olusi & Another vs. Abanobi & Others [suit No. CA/B/309/2008] that:
"It is an affront to the rule of law to… render nugatory an order of Court whether real or anticipatory. Furthermore…parties who have submitted themselves to the equitable jurisdiction of courts must act within the dictates of equity."
45. It is therefore my view that parties who have invited the Court to adjudicate on a matter which they are disputing over ought not to create a situation whereby the decision to be made by the Court would be of no use. In that event as held by the Nigerian Court of Appeal in United Cement Company of Nigeria versus Dangote Industries Ltd & Minister of Solid Mineral Development [CA/A/165/2005], the Court ought to ensure that:
"appropriate orders are made to prevent acts which will destroy the subject matter of the proceedings or foist upon the court a situation of complete helplessness or render nugatory any judgement or order."
46. It is trite that in giving effect to the rights the courts must balance fundamental rights of individual against the public interest in the attainment of justice in the context of the prevailing system of legal administration and the prevailing economic, social and cultural conditions. See Bell vs. DPP [1988] 2 WLR 73.
47. Apart from that as the Supreme Court appreciated in Gitirau Peter Munya vs. Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others [2014] eKLR, the Court must consider whether or not it is in the public interest that the order of stay be granted and that this condition is dictated by the expanded scope of the Bill of Rights, and the public spiritedness that run through the Constitution.
48. In such matters the law is that when a party is appealing, exercising his undoubted right of appeal, the court ought to see that the appeal if successful is not rendered nugatory. See Erinford Properties Ltd vs. Cheshire County International Limited [1974] 2 ALL ER 448; Madhupaper International Limited vs. Ken [1985] KLR 840; Butt vs. Rent Restriction Tribunal [1982] KLR 417.
49. The parties to these proceedings spent a lot of time submitting on the merits of their respective cases. However whereas I appreciate that in an application for stay pending appeal, it is permitted for the applicant to disclose the nature of his intended appeal so that the Court satisfies itself that in determining whether or not to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant, it is not doing so on frivolous grounds, under Order 42 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it is not a condition for grant of stay that the applicant satisfies the Court that his appeal or intended appeal has overwhelming chances of success. In my view the omission to include such a condition is for good cause. It is in my view meant to insulate the Court from which an appeal is preferred from the embarrassment of holding a mini-appeal as it were. Accordingly whereas the Court of Appeal is in a better position to gauge the chances of success of an appeal or intended appeal, this Court in an application seeking stay of execution of its decision pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal is not enjoined to consider such condition. In fact it would be highly undesirable to do so, though it may superficially make reference to the grounds of the intended appeal. This was the position adopted in Universal Petroleum Services Limited vs. B P Tanzania Limited [2006] 1 EA 486 where the Court held that:
"The granting or otherwise of an order of stay of execution under rule 9(2)(b) is at the discretion of the court and in the exercise of that judicial discretion the court as and where is relevant considers a number of factors, notably, whether the refusal to grant stay is likely to cause substantial and irreparable injury or loss to an applicant, whether the injury or loss cannot be atoned by damages, balance of convenience, and whether prima facie the intended appeal has likelihood of success. Above all, further to considering the above factors the court takes into account the individual circumstances and merits of the case in question…At this stage one has to be careful not to pre-empt the pending appeal and for that reason, the court has to discourage a detailed discussion of the weaknesses or otherwise of the decision intended to be impugned on appeal… There is also a danger in saying or making a finding that an appeal has an overwhelming chances of success."
50. In Mangungu vs. National Bank of Commerce Ltd [2007] 2 EA 285, the Court expressed itself on the issue as follows:
"Generally the merits of a party's case in a stay application is not a particularly relevant matter for consideration at this stage. Although it is true that the Court under rule 9(2)(b) has discretion to stay execution, but only on grounds which are relevant to a stay order. Whether or not the appeal has good chances of success is a matter, which should be raised in the appeal itself. The correctness of the judgement should not be impugned in an application for stay of execution save in very obvious cases such as lack of jurisdiction."
51. Accordingly, I will avoid the temptation to embark on such a potentially perilous and embarrassing voyage.
52. It was contended that since the 1st Respondent has already been issued with the nomination, there is nothing to be stayed at this stage. In this case, however the general elections which is the culmination of all the processes in the electoral cycle is yet to be conducted. The cycle is still running. In other words the act complained of, which is the process leading to the representation of the Party by either the 1st or the appellant in the general elections is not complete and has not come to an end. Accordingly, this Court is still seized of the jurisdiction to arrest the same from being completed. This was the position adopted by Dyson, LJ in R (H) vs. Ashworth Hospital Authority [2003] WLR 127 at 138 where the Lord Justice held that:
"The purpose of a stay in a judicial review is clear. It is to suspend the "proceedings" that are under challenge pending the determination of the challenge. It preserves the status quo. This will aid the judicial review process and make it more effective. It will ensure, so far as possible, that, if a party is ultimately successful in his challenge, he will not be denied the full benefit of his success. In Avon, Glidewell, LJ said that the phrase "stay of proceedings" must be given wide interpretation so as to enhance the effectiveness of the judicial review jurisdiction. A narrow interpretation, such as that which appealed to the Privy Council in Vehicle and Supplies, would appear to deny jurisdiction even in case A. That would indeed be regrettable and, if correct, would expose a serious shortcoming in the armoury of powers available to the court when granting permission to apply for judicial review…Thus it is common ground that "proceedings" includes not only the process leading up to the making of the decision but the decision itself. The administrative court routinely grants a stay to prevent the implementation of a decision that has been made but not yet carried into effect, or fully carried into effect." [Underlining mine].
53. What I understand the Court to be saying is that stay may include stay of the decision itself where the circumstances permit. However, whereas this Court appreciates that in certain cases a stay may be granted even where its effect may be to temporarily reverse the decision, that remedy may only be resorted to in exceptional cases and the onus is upon the applicant to prove that such exceptional circumstances exist. It is in this light that this Court understands the decision of Gladwell LJ in Republic vs. Secretary of State for Education and Science, ex parte Avon County Council (No. 2) CA (1991) 1 All ER 282 where he said that:
"An order that a decision of a person or body whose decisions are open to challenge by judicial review shall not take effect until the challenge has been finally determined is, in my view, correctly described as a stay."
54. The matter before me is not a private dispute between two parties. Rather, it is a matter that revolves around the right of representation. It is a matter in which the residents of Nyatike Constituency have a stake. Therefore it is my view that such a matter cannot be decided merely by considering the strictures of the application for stay. Rather, the Court should be guided by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Gitirau Peter Munya vs. Dickson Mwenda Kithinji and 2 Others [2014] eKLR where the highest Court in the land held:
"'Conservatory orders' bear a more decided public law connotation: for these are orders to facilitate ordered functioning within public agencies, as well as to uphold adjudicatory authority of the Court, in the public interest. Conservatory orders, therefore, are not, unlike interlocutory injunctions, linked to such private-party issues as the "prospects of irreparable harm" occurring during the pendency of a case; or "high probability of success' in the applicant's case for orders of stay. Conservatory orders consequently, should be granted on the inherent merit of the case, bearing in mind the public interest, the constitutional values, and the proportionate magnitudes, and priority levels attributable to the relevant causes."
55. That the Court may grant stay was appreciated by the Supreme Court in Zacharia Okoth Obado vs. Edward Akong'o Oyugi & 2 Others [2014] eKLR where it held that:
"Article 3(1) of the Constitution imposes an obligation on every one, without exception, to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution. This obligation is further emphasized with regard to the exercise of judicial authority, by Article 159(2) (e) which requires that in the exercise of judicial authority the Courts must pay heed to the purpose and principles of the Constitution being protected and promoted. However, all statutes flow from the Constitution, and all acts done have to be anchored in law and be constitutional, lest they be declared unconstitutional, hence null and void. Thus, it cannot be said that this Court cannot stop a constitutionally-guided process. What this Court would not do is to extend time beyond that decreed by the Constitution. However, a process provided for by the Constitution and regulated by statute can be stayed, as long as it is finally done within the time-frame constitutionally authorized. For that reason, this Court would, by no means be interfering with a constitutionally-mandated process, if the order for stay is granted. This is because an order for stay will be sufficient to bring to a halt the preparation of the by-election by the IEBC as well as stop the swearing in of the Speaker."
56. The case before this Court is unprecedented both in terms of its ramifications and effects. The subject matter of this decision revolves around interests which are by no means trivial or inconsequential. To the contrary they revolve around the sovereign rights of the people of Nyatike Constituency as decreed in Article 1.Our Constitution is partly crafted based on the Lockean social contract theory. This is so when it is appreciated that Article 1(1) of the Constitution, the very first Article, provides that "all sovereign power belongs to the people of Kenya". It is further important to appreciate that according to the same document at Article 1(2), that sovereign power may be exercised directly or through the people's democratically elected representatives. When it comes to the exercise of such power through the said representatives, it is important to note that under Article 1(3) the peoples' representatives only exercise a "delegated" function. In other words, the Members of Parliament only exercise delegated authority. Whereas the people can exercise their sovereign power directly, when it comes to the exercise of legislative power their participation therein directly is limited and highly restricted hence the role of a Member of Parliament cannot be underestimated. The people cannot for example participate in and influence debates in the National Assembly and they cannot vote on matters affecting them.
57. The role of the National Assembly is outlined in Article 95 of the Constitution as follows:
(1) The National Assembly represents the people of the constituencies and special interests in the National Assembly.
(2) The National Assembly deliberates on and resolves issues of concern to the people.
(3) The National Assembly enacts legislation in accordance with Part 4 of this Chapter.
(4) The National Assembly––
(a) determines the allocation of national revenue between the levels of government, as provided in Part 4 of Chapter Twelve;
(b) appropriates funds for expenditure by the national government and other national State organs; and
(c) exercises oversight over national revenue and its expenditure.
(a) reviews the conduct in office of the President, the Deputy President and other State officers and initiates the process of removing them from office; and
(b) exercises oversight of State organs.
(6) The National Assembly approves declarations of war and extensions of states of emergency.
58. Clearly therefore the role of a Member of the National Assembly are onerous. His or her role transcends own personal interests. Therefore as much as possible the interests of the members of a Constituency ought to be articulated by their chosen representative.
59. In this case it was argued that if the Court does not issue a stay and the 1st Respondent proceeds to the elections as the Party's nominee, in the event that the Court of Appeal reverses the decision being appealed against the public resources shall have been wasted. I am however of the view that if the effect of granting stay would be that the appellant would thereby be the Party's duly nominated candidate and the elections were to proceed, in the event that the appeal, is dismissed similarly public resources would have been wasted.
60. In that event the most prudent decision would be not to permit either candidate to be nominated. This is in tandem with the purpose of an order of stay as restated in Erinford Properties vs. Cheshire (1974) 2 ALL ER 448, 449, that stay of execution pending appeal is meant to preserve the status quo. See also Charterhouse Bank Limited vs. Central Bank Of Kenya & Another Civil Application No. Nai. 200 of 2006 and Samuel Ndiba Kihara & Another vs. Housing Finance Company Of Kenya Limited & Another Civil Application No. Nai. 11 of 2007.
61. It was therefore held by the Court of Appeal in Re: Timothy Riziki Hopkins Civil Application No. Nai. 194 of 2008 that a "stay" does not reverse, annul, undo or suspend what already has been done or what is not specifically stayed nor pass on the merits of orders of the trial court, but merely suspends the time required for performance of the particular mandate stayed, to preserve a status quo pending appeal and that the Court has no jurisdiction at the stage of application for stay of execution pending appeal to grant an order whose effect would be to reverse the decision of the Superior Court and legalise the resolution and the contract already nullified until the determination of the appeal since that can only be nullified upon the hearing of the appeal.
62. One other thing that the Court must bear in mind is that once the elections are conducted such elections can only be challenged in the manner provided under the Constitution. This was the view adopted by the Court of Appeal in Kipkalya Kiprono Kones Vs. Republic & Others Ex Parte Kimani Wanyoike Civil Appeal No. 94 of 2005 [2006] 2 EA 158; [2006] 2 KLR 226; [2008] 3 KLR (EP) 291 where it held that:
"A seat in the National Assembly can only be declared vacant under the circumstances stated in the Constitution and through the processes set out therein… The jurisprudence underlying the above decisions is that the Constitution itself and the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act deal with and set out in detail the procedure of challenging elections and nominations to the National Assembly and those procedures ought to be followed and the judicial review process, which in Kenya is provided for in the Law Reform Act, Chapter 26 of the Laws of Kenya and in Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules cannot oust the provisions of the Constitution in particular since the Law Reform Act and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules are both inferior to and can only apply subject to the provisions of the Constitution…The procedure of judicial review, like that of plaint or any such like procedure, is and was not available to the parties aggrieved by the acts or omissions of the Commission and the only valid way of challenging the outcome of the electoral process, and for that purpose nominating members to the National Assembly is part of the electoral process, is through an election petition as provided in the Constitution and the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act by petition."
63. As held by the High Court in Kaduna in Econet Wireless Limited vs. Econet Wireless Nigeria Ltd and Another [FHC/KD/CS/39/208] the decision to grant a stay involves:
"a consideration of some collateral circumstances and perhaps in some cases inherent matters which may, unless the order of stay is granted, destroy the subject matter or foist upon the Court…a situation of complete hopelessness or render nugatory any order of the…Court or paralyse in one way or the other, the exercise by the litigant of his constitutional right…or generally provide a situation in which whatever happens to the case, and in particular even if the applicant succeeds…there would be no return to the status quo."
64. I appreciate the position that election is a process as opposed to an event and therefore all steps in the election process may come into scrutiny in determining whether or not the elections met the constitutional threshold of fairness and transparency. It is however my considered view that if the situation can be arrested temporarily without exposing the constituents to a risk that they may be locked out of exercising their rights to elect a person of their choice, such temporary measure is the way to go. I therefore associate myself with the position adopted by the Supreme Court in Zacharia Okoth Obado vs. Edward Akong'o Oyugi & 2 Others (supra) that:
"The matter before us is similar to that in the Munya case, in that the constitutional timelines for a by election, which is a relatively short period, have already started running. It is apparent, therefore, that this Court runs the risk of an election being held while the appeal is pending, if a stay is not granted. This scenario would present an awkward situation for both the Court and all parties to this application; a situation best avoided. Therefore it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal would be rendered nugatory, if a stay is not granted. As to whether grant of such stay would be in the public interest, we note that the applicant cited the dictum in the Munya case in his submission that public funds are at risk of being expended for an election when there is an impending appeal that has a high probability of success. He asked that this Court safeguards this public interest. If this Court had any doubt as to this argument, our anxieties are allayed by the 2nd respondent's submission. The 2nd respondent, IEBC, is a constitutional body charged with conducting elections in this Republic. In so doing, it expends public funds. The Constitution decrees under Article 201(d) of the Constitution that public money shall be used in a prudent and responsible manner. The IEBC has cited cases where it had expended public funds to prepare for elections that finally never materialized, because of the outcome of Court decisions. There can be no better reason for grant of stay than in this case where the IEBC itself is calling out loud for grant of stay so as to safeguard public funds."
65. In this case I am not convinced that the intended appeal cannot possibly be heard and determined by the Court of Appeal in time for the elections particularly taking into account the fact that the proceedings and judgement are ready. Everything depends on the workload of the Court of Appeal and I do not have material on the basis of which I can say that it is impossible for the intended appeal to be disposed of before the intended elections. When directing that this matter be heard before me following the unfortunate events that led Mr Justice Kimaru to recuse himself from the matter, the Hon. Chief Justice directed that the matter be heard immediately. It is therefore clear that the judiciary is keenly aware of the need to have the matter expeditiously disposed of.
66. In any case taking into consideration the orders that I am about to give, such eventually may be remedied.
67. It is therefore my view and I find that a conditional stay ought to be granted. Accordingly I hereby grant a stay of execution of the judgement delivered herein on 31st May, 2017 pending the hearing and determination intended appeal or further orders either of this Court or the Court of Appeal on condition that the said appeal be filed within two days excluding the day of delivery of this ruling. For avoidance of doubt, unless these orders are varied either by this Court or the Court of Appeal, the nomination of the Orange Democratic Movement Party's candidate for Nyatike Constituency will await the decision of the Court of Appeal.
68. Thereafter the parties will be at liberty to move the Court of Appeal for appropriate orders and direction with respect to expeditious disposal of the said appeal.
69. The costs of this application are awarded to the 1st Respondent in any event to be borne by the applicant herein, the Orange Democratic Movement Party.
70. It is so ordered.
Dated at Nairobi this 7th day of June, 2017
G V ODUNGA
Delivered in the presence of:
Mr Okongo for the applicant
Miss Fundi for Mr Ligunya for the appellant
Mr Madialo for Mr Amuga for the 1st Respondent
CA Mwangi
Download PDF DOC DOCX PDF With Metadata Docx With Metadata XML
Please enter advanced search options
Case Content: Subject:
Case Number: Parties:
Judge: A.A. Lakha Aaron G Ringera Abdallah J Abdul Majid Cockar Abdul Rauf Samnakay Abdulla Mustafa Abdulrasul Ahmed Lakha Abida Ali-Aroni Abigail Mshila Aggrey Otsyula Muchelule Agnes Kalekye Murgor Akilano Molade Akiwumi Alan Robin Winston Hancox Alex George Aluri Etyang Alfred Henry Simpson Alfred Mabeya Alister Arthur Kneller Alnashir Ramazanali Magan Visram Amraphael Mbogholi-Msagha Amrittal Bhagwanji Shah Andrew Isaac Hayanga Anne Apondi Ong'injo Anne Omollo Anthony Kaniaru Anthony Ndung'u Kimani Antonina Kossy Bor Antony Charo Mrima Antony Ombwayo Asenath Nyaboke Ongeri Augustino S.L. Ramadhani Barabara Kiprugut Tanui Barth J Beatrice Thuranira Jaden Benard Mweresa Eboso Benjamin Patrick Kubo Benna Cleya Wamukoya Lutta Bernard Chunga Bernard M. Ngoepe Bernard M. Ngoepe Boaz Nathan Olao Bwonwong'a Justus Momanyi Byram Ongaya C.O Ong'udi Cecil Henry Ethelwood Miller Cecilia Wathaiya Githua Chanan Singh Charles Demoree Newbold Charles Gitonga Mbogo Charles Pius Chemuttut Charles Yano Kimutai Charlton Ade'bert Gustavus Lane Christine Atieno Ochieng Christine Wanjiku Meoli Chunilal Bhagwandas Madan Connel J Dalmas Omondi Ohungo Daniel Kennedy Sultani Aganyanya Daniel Kiio Musinga Daniel Ogola Ogembo David A Onyancha David Christopher Porter David Kenani Maraga David Kipyegomen Kemei David Maitai Rimita David Shikomera Majanja Derek Schofield Dermot Joseph Sheridan Dorah O. Chepkwony Duncan Tambala Edward Alfred Jubal Edmonds Edward Muthoga Muriithi Edward Nii Adjar Torgbor Edward Trevelyan Edwards J Effie Owuor El Hadji Guisse Elija Ogoti Obaga Elsie N. Thompson EMILY R. KAYITESI Emily R. Kayitesi Emmanuel Okello O'Kubasu Enock Chacha Mwita Enock Chirchir Cherono Erastus Mwaniki Githinji Eric John Ewen Law Eric Kennedy Okumu Ogola Ernest Fredrick Aragon Esther Nyambura Maina Eugene Cotran Farah S.M Amin Fatsah Ougurgouz Fatuma sichale Festus Azangalala Fidulhussein Esmailji Abdullah Florence Nyaguthii Muchemi Francis Gikonyo Francis Tuiyott Fred Andago Ochieng Fred Kwasi Apaloo Fred Kwasi Apaloo Geoffrey Burkitt Whitecomb Rudd George Benedict Maina Kariuki George Ernest Omondi Tunya George Martin Ongondo George Matatia Abaleka Dulu George Vincent Odunga Gerard Niungeko Gideon P Mbito Gilbert Andalya Omwitsa Grace Lidembu Nzioka Grace Wangui Ngenye Gurbachan Singh Pall Hannah Magondi Okwengu Harold Grant Platt HAROLD R. NSEKELA Harold R. Nsekela Hatari Peter George Waweru Hedwig Imbosa Ong'udi Hellen Amolo Omondi Hellen Wasilwa Seruya Hilary Kiplagat Chemitei Isaac Charles Cheskaki Wambilyangah Isaac Lenaola J.V. Juma Jackson Kasanga Mulwa Jackton Boma Ojwang Jacqueline Kamau Jairus Ngaah James Aaron Makau James Frank Shields JAMES OGOOLA James Ogoola James Onyiego Nyarangi James Otieno Odek James Otieno Olola James Patrick Trainor James Rika James wakiaga Jamila Mohammed Jane Muyoti Onyango Janet Nzilani Mulwa Jean Bosco Butasi Jeanne Wanjiku Gacheche Jemutai Grace Kemei Jesse Nyagah Njagi Jessie Wanjiku Lessit JM Gachuhi Joel Mwaura Ngugi John Alexander Couldrey John Amonde Mango John Henry Sydney Todd John Joseph Mkwawa John Luka Osiemo John Micheal Khamoni John Muting'a Mativo John Mutungi John Mwangi Gachuhi John Nyabuto Onyiego John walter Onyango Otieno John Wycliffe Mwera Johnson Evan Gicheru Johnson Kiptonui Mitey Johnston Busingye Johnston Busingye Jonathan Bowen Havelock Joseph Gregory Nyamu Joseph Kiplagat Sergon Joseph Mbalu Mutava Joseph Raphael Karanja Joseph Raymond Otieno Masime Joseph Vitalis Odero Juma Joseph William Alexander Butler-Sloss Joyce Adhiambo Aluoch Joyce Nuku Khaminwa Justin Saulo Musoke Kaburu Bauni Kalpana Hasmukhrai Rawal Kanyi Kimondo Kathurima M'inoti Kenneth D Potter Kenneth Kennedy O'Connor Kiarie Waweru Kiarie Kimelabalou Aba Kosgei LAURENT NZOSABA Laurent Nzosaba Lawrence Peter Ouna Leonard Njagi Leslie Gerald Eyre Harris Lilian Nabwire Mutende Linnet Ndolo Loice Chepkemoi Komingoi Lucian Basil Ouma Lucie Smith J Lucy Mwihaki Njuguna Lucy Ngima Mbugua Lucy Nyambura Gacheru Lucy Waithaka Lucy Waruguru Gitari Luka Kiprotich Kimaru Lydia Awino Achode M'Nkanata Mburugu Kioga Maluki Kitili Mwendwa Marete D.K. Njagi Margaret Njoki Mwangi Margaret Waringa Muigai Martha Karambu Koome Martin Muya Mary Atieno Ang'awa Mary Clausina Oundo Mary Muhanji Kasango Mary Muthoni Gitumbi Mary Stella Arach-Amoko Mathew Guy Muli Mathew John Anyara Emukule Mathews Nderi Nduma Maureen Akinyi Odero Maureen Atieno Onyango Miles Milicent Akinyi Odeny Milton Stephen Asike Makhandia Mitei J Mohammed Abdullahi Warsame Mohammed Khadhar Ibrahim Mohammed Noor Kullow Moijo Matayia Ole Keiwua Monica Mbaru Muga Apondi Mumbi Ngugi Munyao Sila Murugi Geteria Mugo Muthoga CA Mutungi Charles Kariuki Mwangi Njoroge Nagillah Chrispin Beda Nancy Makokha Barasa Nelly Awori Matheka Nelson Jorum Abuodha Nicholas Randa Owano Ombija Norbury Dugdale Nzioki wa Makau Olga Akech Sewe Onesmus Kimweli Mutungi Onesmus Ndambuthi Makau Onguto Joseph Louis Omondi Oscar Angote Pamela Mwikali Tutui Patrick J. Okwaro Otieno Patrick John Kamau Patrick Omwenga Kiage Paul Kihara Kariuki Paul Kiptenai Kimisoy Arap Birech Pauline Nyamweya Peter John Hewett Peter Muchoki Njoroge Philip John Ransley Philip Kiptoo Tunoi Philip Nyamu Waki Philomena Mbete Mwilu Pritam Singh Brar R. Walekhwa R.S.C Omolo Rachel Biomondo Ngetich Radido Stephen Okiyo Raj Bahadar Bhandari Ransley Samuel Thacker Reuben Nyambati Nyakundi Riaga Samuel Cornelius Omolo Richard Charles Namasaka Kuloba Richard Mururu Mwongo Richard Otieno Kwach Robert Eno Robert Kipkoech Limo Robert Mugo Mutitu Rose Edwina Atieno Ougo Roseline Lagat-Korir Roseline Pauline Vunoro Wendoh Roselyn Naliaka Nambuye Roselyne Ekirapa Aburili Ruth Nekoye Sitati SA Crabbe Said Juma Chitembwe Sampson CA Samson Odhiambo Okong'o Samuel Elikana Ondari Bosire Samuel William Wako Wambuzi Samwel Ndungu Mukunya Samwel Odhiambo Oguk Sankale ole Kantai Sarah Chibai Ondeyo Scholastica Omondi Scriven J Sheikh Mohammed Amin Silvain Ore Sir James Wicks Sir John Ainley Smokin C Wanjala Sophia A.B. Akuffo Stella Munai Muketi Stella Ngali Mutuku Stephen Gatembu Kairu Stephen Kibunja Stephen Murugu Githinji Stephen Nyangau Riechi Stewart Mwachiru Madzayo Surrender Kumar Sachdeva Susanna Njoki Ndungu Tank J Teresia Mumbua Matheka Thande Mugure Thomas J Thripsisa Wanjiku Cherere Tom Mbaluto Vinubhai Vithalbhai Patel Violet Khadi Mavisi Wanjiru Karanja Weldon Kipyegon Korir Wilfrida Adhiambo Okwany Wilkinson-Guillemard William Agernon Hotwell Duffus William Kipsiro Tuiyot William Mbaya William Musya Musyoka William Ouko William Shirley Deverell Willy Munywoki Mutunga Yuvinalis Maronga Angima Zakayo Richard Chesoni Court: All Courts of Appeal All High Courts All Industrial Courts Environmental And Land Court Supreme Court of Kenya Court of Appeal at Busia Court of Appeal at Eldoret Court of Appeal at Kisii Court of Appeal at Kisumu Court of Appeal at Malindi Court of Appeal at Mombasa Court of Appeal at Nairobi Court of Appeal at Nakuru Court of Appeal at Nyeri High Court at Bomet High Court at Bungoma High Court at Busia High Court at Chuka High Court at Eldoret High Court at Embu High Court at Garissa High Court at Garsen High Court at Homabay High Court at Kabarnet High Court at Kajiado High Court at Kakamega High Court at Kapenguria High Court at Kericho High Court at Kerugoya High Court at Kiambu High Court at Kisii High Court at Kisumu High Court at Kitale High Court at Kitui High Court at Kwale High Court at Lodwar High Court at Machakos High Court at Makueni High Court at Malindi High Court at Marsabit High Court at Meru High Court at Migori High Court at Mombasa High Court at Murang'a High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division) High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) High Court at Naivasha High Court at Nakuru High Court at Nanyuki High Court at Narok High Court at Nyahururu High Court at Nyamira High Court at Nyeri High Court at Siaya High Court at Thika High Court at Voi Employment and Labour Relations Court at Bungoma Employment and Labour Relations Court at Eldoret Employment and Labour Relations Court at Garissa Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu Employment and Labour Relations Court at Machakos Employment and Labour Relations Court at Malindi Employment and Labour Relations Court at Meru Employment and Labour Relations Court at Mombasa Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nakuru Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nyeri East African Court of Justice Interim Independent Constitutional Dispute Resolution Court Court of Appeal for East Africa Judges and Magistrates Vetting Board Dispute Resolution Committee (IEBC) African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights Anti- Corruption Magistrate's Court Election Petition in Magistrate Courts Business Premises Rent Tribunal Commissions and AdHoc Tribunals Communication and Multimedia Appeals Tribunal Competent Authority Tribunal Competition Tribunal Cooperative Tribunal Education Appeals Tribunal Energy Tribunal HIV and AIDS Tribunal Industrial Property Tribunal Insurance Appeals Tribunal Legal Education Appeals Tribunal Micro and Small Enterprises Tribunal National Civil Aviation Administrative Review Tribunal National Environment Tribunal - Nairobi Political Party's Tribunal Public Private Partnership Petition Committee Tribunal Rent Restriction Tribunal Sports Disputes Tribunal Standards Tribunal State Corporations Appeals Tribunal Tax Appeal Tribunal Transport Licensing Appeals Board Tribunal Environment and Land Court at Bungoma Environment and Land Court at Busia Environment and Land Court at Chuka Environment and Land Court at Eldoret Environment and Land Court at Embu Environment and Land Court at Garissa Environment and Land Court at Kajiado Environment and Land Court at Kakamega Environment and Land Court at Kericho Environment and Land Court at Kerugoya Environment and Land Court at Kisii Environment and Land Court at Kisumu Environment and Land Court at Kitale Environment and Land Court at Kwale Environment and Land Court at Machakos Environment and Land Court at Makueni Environment and Land Court at Malindi Environment and Land Court at Meru Environment and Land Court at Migori Environment and Land Court at Mombasa Environment and Land Court at Muranga Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Environment and Land Court at Nakuru Environment and Land Court at Narok Environment and Land Court at Nyahururu Environment and Land Court at Nyandarua Environment and Land Court at Nyeri Environment and Land Court at Thika Kadhis Court at Bungoma Kadhis Court at Busia Kadhis Court at Eldoret Kadhis Court at Garissa Kadhis Court at Garissa (Dadaab) Kadhis Court at Garsen Kadhis Court at Hamisi Kadhis Court at Hola Kadhis Court at Homabay Kadhis Court at Isiolo Kadhis Court at Kajiado Kadhis Court at Kakamega Kadhis Court at Kericho Kadhis Court at Kilifi Kadhis Court at Kisumu Kadhis Court at Kitale Kadhis Court at Kitui Kadhis Court at Kwale Kadhis Court at Lamu Kadhis Court at Lodwar (Kakuma) Kadhis Court at Machakos Kadhis Court at Malindi Kadhis Court at Mandera Kadhis Court at Marsabit Kadhis Court at Meru Kadhis Court at Migori Kadhis Court at Mombasa Kadhis Court at Moyale Kadhis Court at Murang'a Kadhis Court at Nairobi (Kibera Law Courts) Kadhis Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Court) Kadhis Court at Nakuru Kadhis Court at Nyeri Kadhis Court at Thika Kadhis Court at Voi Kadhis Court at Wajir Kadhis Court at Wajir (Habaswein) Kadhi's Court at Garbatulla
Delivery Date Range:
© 2021 National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law). · Creative Commons · Privacy Policy & Disclaimer


5 inch CD + 5 inch DVD in custom fold-out digipak with booklet and pack of three stickers. Sticker on outer wrap. #162,464 of 250,000.
US CD edition, limited to 250,000 copies. Stickers included: 1,000,000; Head Down; Corona Radiata.


Since the start of the 2018 World Cup, David de Gea has conceded 10 goals from the 14 shots he's faced in competitive football. While we're on statistics, only 20% of those were his fault.
Following an error from a Cristiano Ronaldo strike in Spain's opening World Cup clash with Portugal this summer, David de Gea was quick to make a point. For here was a man, widely recognised at the time as the world's No1 goalkeeper, under fire after conceding three goals to the greatest player on the planet.
Sadly, things got worse. As the Spaniards bombed out to Russia in the last 16, his nation's critics circled. Spanish newspaper Marca claimed De Gea had "lost his position as the undisputed No1 of Spain" while El Mundo Deportivo simply described his tournament as "a disaster".
Fast forward two months and despite boasting a "full battery" upon returning to Manchester United for the new campaign, De Gea finds himself in a similar position – or at least that's what the numbers suggest. Conceding 10 goals from 14 shots is a condemning statistic, but is it also misleading? Should Red Devils fans be concerned about the lucrative new deal set to secure the stopper's Old Trafford future? Or can we argue that such a statistic doesn't tell the whole story?
Pretty straightforward start. Great penalty. Great strike. Great player. Next.
DE GEA TO BLAME? No.
I tweeted about this on the night. Seconds before the shot he's focusing on something else and hasn't regained full concentration in time to gather Ronaldo's effort. As a result, he's off balance, his barrier isn't square and he hasn't got both hands in the right position to stun the ball forward. Opting to stun rather than scoop the ball up could be questioned, but he's factored in Ronaldo's power and the chance it could slightly move. In this instance, tiny details have caused an error.
DE GEA TO BLAME? Yes.
An incredible strike that most goalkeepers in football history would struggle to stop unless they were positioned almost directly where the ball ended up.
What I will say, however, is that a five-man wall isn't required. De Gea has opted for one because Portugal have two players over the set-piece – right-footed Ronaldo and left-footed Raphael Guerreiro. He's covered both eventualities when he should know Guerreiro has absolutely no chance of taking that free-kick. In the event of going with five simply because it's Ronaldo, De Gea should be confident enough to back himself.
The inside man (far left as we look at it) isn't necessary for Ronaldo as it would still take a lot for him to either knuckleball or curl it beyond De Gea from that angle. Therefore, being a step further to his left (where he can still see the ball without the extra man) gives him a greater chance of saving the free-kick should it go around the wall. Which it did.
DE GEA TO BLAME? No. There's no need for the extra man in the wall, but take nothing away from the magnitude of Ronaldo's strike.
One-on-ones are about timing and making yourself into the biggest barrier possible. De Gea has managed that with his classic spread. He's anticipated Boutaib is going to slot to either corner and has narrowed the angles with his feet, while his hands are stretched and close to his thighs. Bar hitting it high in the corners, Boutaib's best option is to go through De Gea's legs. Fair play to him for executing it, not that I'm not convinced he intended to. It looks like he's aimed for the far corner and slightly scuffed his shot under the Spaniard through through luck more than judgement.
DE GEA TO BLAME? No. Bar perhaps spreading a split-second earlier, there isn't a lot else he could have done. We won't dwell on the misplaced pass which lead to the chance, either.
Great delivery. Even better header. Unstoppable. Next.
If he goes the right way, he saves it. Granted, De Gea doesn't have the best penalty-saving record, but that's not enough to pin this as an error.
How often do we see this in a season? Inswinging delivery, goalkeeper sets to rightly anticipate touch from striker or defender, neither gets one, ball bounces in. There is an option to react to the initial ball and just dive regardless, but you're made to look silly if there's a touch and it does end up in the net. Here, De Gea's expecting a touch from Vardy and has zero time to react when it bounces back off the post.
If a goalkeeper has reaction time, he can set and go. At such close range, you just cover the biggest area possible and hope the ball hits you. De Gea has again adopted that signature spread, which is the right thing to do, but the dink from Murray nullifies it. Great finish.
He's got no chance with Duffy's shot, but De Gea should stop the move by either collecting or punching from the initial corner. In this scenario – with two players on top of you – you keep the players close and, just as the corner is taken, give them a shove to make space (it's a foul but never given) and then follow with an explosive jump to deal with the cross. Instead, De Gea has bizarrely found himself on the wrong side of Dale Stephens and Ashley Young as the ball drops over his head to the area he should be occupying (I've circled it below).
This is the first time I can pinpoint a lack of confidence in his game. By entertaining those players and seemingly appealing to the referee, it's like he's claiming a foul to avoid taking control of the situation.
Another penalty (that's three from 10). It's not the best spot kick from Gross, but De Gea hasn't got control over his shins in the same way he has over his hands. On another day, that hits a slightly different part of his boot and he keeps it out.
So, there we have it. From the 10 goals conceded by David de Gea since the start of the World Cup, only two were due to errors made by him. And one of those wasn't obvious.
As a goalkeeper there is only so much of the game you can control.
I remember travelling to Coventry in my days at Watford. I'd not had a minute's sleep the night before and felt horrendous in the opening 10 minutes. By the end of the game I'd made three big saves and we came away with a 3-0 win. Everything that day just happened to hit me. I was fortunate.
On the flip side, one of my early games for the club was a home clash with Nottingham Forest. I was buzzing in the warm-up and felt unbeatable. On the stroke of half-time, a Kris Commons shot moved at the last second and flashed straight past me. We lost 2-0.
For the past two years prior to the World Cup, pretty much everything had gone in De Gea's favour. For a small period now, all the 50/50 odds are going against him. Yes, he's making additional errors, but not to the extent that his ability should be questioned.
None of the above goals are error-free. That applies to everyone on the pitch and not just the goalkeeper. With the exception of Ronaldo's second and Duffy's strike, De Gea hasn't done a whole lot wrong. I have no doubt he'll silence the stats.


text:
Home » Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Category Archives: Volodymyr Zelenskyy
"…the result is the same: beasts of prey and ignorant thieves"
February 25, 2022 12:18 / 2 Comments on "…the result is the same: beasts of prey and ignorant thieves"
Photograph by AP in The Guardian
Since the ousting of a close Putin ally (ex-President Viktor Yanukovich) from Ukrainian politics and territory in 2014 during the Euromaidan revolution, the closeness the country had come to actually joining the defensive NATO alliance seems to have irked Putin enough to swiftly "recognise the independence" of, as with Crimea in 2014, two Eastern-Ukrainian regions, Donetsk and Luhansk. It is not a new politically strategic move and certainly not unique to Russia. Examples of this kind of act can be seen around the world in regions where complex power interplays are rendering regional enclaves powerless in garnering enough support for the recognition of their own independence from oppressive regimes, genocide or in securing mere rights to self-determination (e.g. Kashmir in Northern India, Artsakh in South-Eastern Armenia etc.).
Yesterday morning we awoke to the news that Russia's Vladimir Putin had ordered a full-scale attack on Ukrainian sovereign territory, in violation of international law (among many other violations of basic morality and human decency). I should emphasise here that this is a Putin-centred issue rather than one which encompasses the Russian Federation, since it is not inconceivable to suggest that ordinary Russian citizens are not particularly excited that their relatives, friends, children are being sent to die like cattle in another country while their billionaire leader basks in complete safety in his ivory tower. With an attack from the northern, eastern and southern borders of the country…and now the imminent arrival of Russian troops in Ukraine's capital Kiev…this does not seem like just a case of Putin's desire to rebuild a modern-day Russian empire incorporating its former Soviet nations, but a much deeper personal desperation to be seen to be the only globally-remaining strong leader.
The stepping down of Angela Merkel in Germany, ousting of Donald Trump from the US, and the failure of Brexit in achieving what he thought would be a political and economic disaster for the European Union, have all contributed to Putin's desperation. The poisoning and subsequent arrest/detention of Alexei Navalny, the populist Russian opposition leader who in recent years managed to almost successfully stage a political coop against Putin, demonstrates the lengths Putin will go to convince his increasingly oppressed citizens that the alternative to his leadership will equate to the kinds of political and economic failures they have witnessed of Western nations.
It is clear that the UK's sanctions have not gone near far enough in preventing the kinds of miscarriages of justice that will inevitably follow from Putin's appointment of a de facto Russian leader on Ukrainian soil without democratic support from the Ukrainian people. But I wonder whether the seemingly lazy response from Boris Johnson and the UK Conservative Party is indicative of the deeply-rooted corruption which helped his eventual election into British politics. We had for many years been aware of the extent of foreign money laundering through UK banks by Russian and Azerbaijani oligarchs, the billions of pounds' worth of UK property owned by those with close ties to the Kremlin, the millions donated to fund the Conservative Party, and perhaps most significantly, the "we'll return the favour" investments by Conservative politicians in Russian-owned banks, stocks and shares. Is it then surprising that Putin was so supportive of the Brexit campaign and the election of Donald Trump, both seemingly aimed at destabilising the West; the US, UK and EU? Surely, now is the time for the British public to demand the highest level of openness and transparency of their politicians, particularly those who have already been elected under the banner of lies. Perhaps this will help in our collective political and economic response to miscarriages abroad, as well as within our borders.
NATO nations' unwillingness to intervene, militarily, in this conflict is evidently the green light Putin needed to set foot in sovereign territory under the guise of "denazification" (bizarre considering Volodymyr Zelenskyy – the current Ukrainian President – is himself Jewish). This should form a stark reminder to former Soviet nations not to be seduced by the thought of reliving some kind of Soviet nostalgia of perceived religious and cultural similarities with Russia which has been drip-fed for many years since the collapse of the USSR. Those living in this hazy nostalgic dream will soon forget the reality that the experience of a Russian invasion will be grounded not in the form of communism which once secured its citizens with guaranteed housing, easy employment, and annual trips to the sanatorium…but in a dangerous oppressive dictatorship and an isolationist economic model. To quote a well-known message from a 1993 Russian film Window to Paris: 'Sure. You brought up builders of communism. Now, it's builders of capitalism. And the result is the same: beasts of prey and ignorant thieves'.
Former Soviet nations not aiding and abetting the current aggression in Ukraine (as Belarus is doing) should now be alert to the fact that they will never be safe in a military limbo, nor under Putin's wing. It is a time where citizens of these regions should let go of any hope of a return to a "simpler way of life" and move to securing effective political and military support for their nations away from Russian influence.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Prepping for April Fool's Day? Engaged in ongoing high jinks with your co-workers? It's time to up your game and pull off your own epic prank.
Panther Sightings: Has The Big Cat Returned?
From the Wampus Cat to The Santer to The Beast of Bladenboro, the eastern mountain lion has been extinct for nearly a century, but panther sightings are on the rise.
Ultimate iPhone Easter Egg If You Say This Word!
Engage the ultimate Easter egg hiding within your iPhone by saying this secret phrase too Siri.
ASMR is like that tingle you feel when someone softly brushes your hair or blows in your ear. It can be triggered by touch, gentle visuals, relaxing sounds, and soothing voices.
The Internet is deeper and darker than many people imagine, and when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.
Durham band Gainsay's recently released EP brings sprightly guitar solos and energetic vocals merge with fast-paced bass on songs like Punk Rock California.
Although they aren't officially affiliated with Hopscotch, Guitartown's community of music lovers simply can't wait for the festival to start.
Greensboro-based band, the Kneads, is gearing up for the eclectic Raleigh stage, and was cool enough to grant us an interview.
With the razzle-dazzle of glam rock, Kat Robichaud's unique sound has catapulted her out of the Raleigh music scene and onto the national stage.
Amongst many strange and unique confections from across the globe, I discovered a trove of bacon-flavored delights.
Megaman, Castlevania, Super Mario Bros, Zelda: these were legends of the NES era of old. Wouldn't it have been cool to see a game that combined all those games into one back when we were kids in the 80's?


text:
News Archive - All News
New Members for the IEE Alumni Family
Finally, it is done! We are happy to welcome new graduates to the alumni network of the IEE. 12 candidates from the Cape Town group of the MA in Development Management (MADM) programme obtained their Master's degree. They received their graduation certificates on Saturday, 30th of November. Earlier that week, they had successfully defended their master theses on interesting topics like innovation hubs, certification of cocoa farmers, and survival strategies of street traders (just to name some of them).
Our graduates now pursue new goals. Some of them chose the opportunity to strive for a second MA degree, as it is offered by the IEE's partner institutions from the University in the Western Cape (South Africa) to the best graduates of the MADM programme. Yet, most of the graduates directly head for the practical area.
We wish our graduates all the best for their future career and trust that they will find exciting positions! We are looking forward to hear from our alumni soon.
Congratulations, Dr. Siebert!
After successful defence of her PhD Thesis on Thursday, 21 November 2019, IEE research fellow Anne Siebert has been awarded the degree of a Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.).
Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Löwenstein (RUB), Prof. Dr. Jun M. Borras (ISS), Anne Siebert, Prof. Dr. Arjun Bedi (Deputy Rector for Research at ISS)
Her thesis entitled "Food Sovereignty and Urban Agriculture: Understanding Interlinkages and Exploring Implications in the South African Context" was supervised by Prof. Dr. Jun M. Borras, ISS, and Prof. Dr. Pierre Thielbörger, RUB.
The public defence was held in The Hague, and PhD has been awarded to Anne Siebert under the joint PhD agreement between the ISS and the IEE, which has been signed in 2014.
Congratulations, Dr. Seeger!
After successful defence of her doctoral thesis on Tuesday, 19 November 2019, IEE member Christina Seeger has been awarded the degree of a Doctor (Dr. rer. oec.) of the Faculty of Economics at RUB.
Prof. Dr. Manuel Frondel, Christina Seeger, Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Löwenstein
Her thesis with the title "Trust and consumers' willingness to pay for safe and certified safe vegetables in West African cities: A comparative analysis of Tamale, Ouagadougou, Bamenda, and Bamako" was supervised by Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Löwenstein and Prof. Dr. Manuel Frondel. Prof. Dr. Helmut Karl chaired the oral exam.
IEE Hosts Alumni Conference
"Evaluation of Development Interventions
- Current Debates, Methods, and Best Practices -"
As a central part of its alumni activities, the Institute of Development Research and Development Policy (IEE; Ruhr-University Bochum) regularly organises alumni conferences in close collaboration with its partner master programmes. Against this background, the IEE hosts a conference from the 5th-8th of November 2019, titled "Evaluation of Development Interventions - Current Debates, Methods, and Best Practices" in Bochum. The conference partners are the MA programme in Development Management (MADM; IEE), the MA programme in International and Development Economics (MIDE; HTW Berlin), the Small Enterprise Promotion and Training Programme (SEPT; University of Leipzig), the MA programme in Development and Governance (Institute of Political Science (IfP); University of Duisburg-Essen), and the MA programme in International Relations and Development Policy (Institute for Development and Peace (INEF); University of Duisburg-Essen).
PhD Exchange student from ISS
Yukari Sekine is a PhD Candidate of Development Studies at the International Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague. She is part of the Political Ecology Research Group and will be joining the IEE from September 2019 to February 2020 for a PhD Exchange, funded by the RUB Research School. At the ISS, she was part of the MOSAIC Research Project: "Climate change mitigation policies, land grabbing and conflict in fragile states: understanding intersections, exploring transformations in Myanmar and Cambodia", under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Saturnino ('Jun') Borras Jr. which was concluded in 2018. In Myanmar, her PhD research covers rural politics, the intersection of climate change mitigation and land grabs, and struggles for agrarian, environmental and climate justice. She has conducted fieldwork in the southern Tanintharyi region, a hub of palm oil, extractivism, conservation and land related conflicts. She is also interested in reflecting on the challenges of scholar-activism and the role of academics in their collaboration with grassroots partners. At IEE, she will be supervised by Prof. Dr. Löwenstein and Dr. Gabriele Bäcker, and will collaborate with Anne Siebert on a joint paper, to link conceptually the issues of sovereignty, territory and citizenship. Yukari has an M.A. in Global Studies from Sophia University in Tokyo, Japan, and a B.A. in Journalism from the Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, in Brazil. She is looking forward to interacting with the researchers and students and getting to know the IEE.
PhD Thesis of Former EUSA_ID Scholarship Holder Published
Elise van der Mark, who stayed for 2.5 years at the University of the Western Cape (UWC) with an "EUSA_ID" scholarship, now graduated at the "Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam" and published her PhD thesis with the title "Against All Odds: Exploring wellbeing transformation with mothers of disabled children from poor urban settlements in Southern Africa". During her stay at UWC, her thesis was co-supervised by Dr. Ina Conradie. Congratulations!
Please find the thesis here
Congratulations, Dr. Hoedoafia!
After successful defence of her PhD Thesis on Friday, 23 August 2019, Mabel Akosua Hoedoafia from Ghana has been awarded the degree of a Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.).
Prof. Dr. Helmut Karl, Mabel Hoedoafia with daughter, Prof. Dr. Matthias Busse
Her thesis with the title "International Trade and Private Sector Performance: A Critical Analysis of Ghana's Manufacturing Sector" was supervised by Prof. Dr. Matthias Busse and Prof. Dr. Helmut Karl. Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Löwenstein chaired the oral exam.
Congratulations, Dr. Hope!
After successful defence of her PhD Thesis on Monday, 12 August 2019, Lesley Hope from Ghana has been awarded the degree of a Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.).
Her thesis with the title "Amending Biochar to Urban Farmlands: An Economic Evaluation of the Effects on Food Security in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) and in Tamale (Ghana)" was supervised by Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Löwenstein and Prof. Dr. Helmut Karl. Prof. Dr. Werner Voß chaired the oral exam.
New Journal Article by Two MADM Alumni
Nardos Legesse Beyene, Alumnus of IEE's MA in Development Management, together with Mulugeta F. Dinbabo, also IEE Alumnus and nowadays Acting Director of the Institute for Social Development, IEE's partner institution at the University of the Western Cape/South Africa, published an article on
An Empirical Evaluation of the Link between Women Participation in Village Savings and Loans Association (VSLA) and Poverty Reduction in Ethiopia
MADM student wins MAXQDA Research Grant
Lisa van Aalst, student of the Bochum Programme of Development Management in Cape Town, successfully won the MAXQDA Research Grant for her field research period in India. She will perform her field research for her master thesis research project titled "Collective Action and Access to Justice – A case study of Dalit Women Collectives in rural Uttar Pradesh, India". More information can be found here.
We congratulate Lisa for this award and wish her all the best for her field research.
Institute Navigation
News Archive Selection


text:
Q: Sendmail Sends but never Delivers I have tried 10 different emails hosted at Google, Yahoo!, GoDaddy, and some that are privately hosted, and each time I get the following errors.  I have blocked sensitive information, but you will be able to see the errors.
Feb 16 17:06:50 xxxxx sendmail[31824]: o1GM6ovJ031824: to=jxxxxxd@att.net, ctladdr=www-data (33/33), delay=00:00:00, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=relay, pri=30054, relay=[127.0.0.1] [127.0.0.1], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (o1GM6oJo031825 Message accepted for delivery)
Feb 16 16:54:19 xxxxx sendmail[31625]: o1GLsJPP031625: to=jeremy@hxxxxxc.com, ctladdr=www-data (33/33), delay=00:00:00, xdelay=00:00:00, mailer=relay, pri=30097, relay=[127.0.0.1] [127.0.0.1], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent (o1GLsJah031626 Message accepted for delivery)
Feb 17 09:05:52 xxxxx sm-mta[10620]: o1H6Z3jM005734: to=<jeremy@hxxxxxc.com>, ctladdr=<www-data@xxxxx.corenetworks.net> (33/33), delay=07:30:49, xdelay=01:15:36, mailer=esmtp, pri=571331, relay=aspmx3.googlemail.com. [209.85.222.4], dsn=4.0.0, stat=Deferred: Connection timed out with aspmx3.googlemail.com.
Feb 17 10:35:23 xxxxx sm-mta[12828]: o1HEZwn8011833: to=<jxxxxxd@att.net>, ctladdr=<www-data@xxxxx.corenetworks.net> (33/33), delay=00:59:25, xdelay=00:12:36, mailer=esmtp, pri=300353, relay=aln-mailrelay.att.net. [12.102.252.75], dsn=4.0.0, stat=Deferred: Connection timed out with aln-mailrelay.att.net.

If you take a look, they all send, but then (HOURS later) I get an error "stat=Deferred: Connection timed out with {server}".  I'm at my wits end, because I use this same setup on each of my servers, and they all work.

A: if you cant use port 25 you can normally use port 587 as this is the SMTP delivery port that was designed to be used between servers.
Test that out if your ISP block port 25.
DNS looks to be working also as it returns the IP addresses of the remote servers.  Yes, test port 587 and send out on that port instead.
edit: tested it works for me on 25.
~$ telnet aspmx3.googlemail.com 25
Trying 72.14.213.27...
Connected to aspmx3.googlemail.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mx.google.com ESMTP q20si8879349rvl.138

A: I have no idea how to read a Sendmail log, but this is what it looks like to me:
The first two lines indicate that the server you're sending through (127.0.0.1 - localhost) accepted the client email for delivery to the remote systems. These first two lines indicate that the local server (yours) accepted the email from the email client (which may be the server itself). It doesn't indicate that a connection has been made to the remote systems and that the remote systems have accepted the email.
The third and fourth lines indicate your servers' outbound attempt to deliver the email to the remote systems and indicates that the emails are being deferred at the remote systems.
It could be that the remote systems are graylisting your incoming emails. What's the outbound FQDN of your server? Do you have A, PTR, and SPF records set up in your public DNS zone for this FQDN?
As voretaq7 suggested, can you establish a telnet connection to port 25 from your server to the remote systems and carry on a successfull SMTP conversation (try sending a test email while connected via telnet)?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


To help you meet mandatory and voluntary reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, SGS offers you a range of climate change services. Call us today to find out more.
Our services can help you whether you are eligible for the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), have a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project or simply want to report to one of the growing number of voluntary or state-based initiatives. Our climate change program will help facilitate your trade in GHG emissions. By promoting the standardization of verification procedures, it will allow you to participate in international schemes.
We are committed to ensuring that GHG emissions and emission reductions are reported in a complete, consistent and accurate manner. We validate projects to ensure they comply with the relevant eligibility criteria. Our emission verification determines compliance with caps and for voluntary reporting. We also certify emission reductions.
With offices in over 1,100 locations in 140 countries, we are sure to be close to your project. Call us today to find out about climate change services to suit your industry and give a competitive edge to your activities.


text:
Pantry of Hope
Spiritual Gifts Zoom Class
Livestream – Virtual Worship Experience
His Passion
Winning souls for Christ is my passion, so I serve the ministries that focus on telling others about Christ and facilitating the worship experience. I also focus on the spiritual development of our youth so I spend a lot of time with our young people. My wife Ebony and I believe that our ministry is both in the home and outside the home and we never stop looking for opportunities to serve the Lord.
Destine for greatness: Read this article published in Philly.com about Pastor Hinson on January 3, 2000.
A Young Pastor's Inspiration Is Fueled By His Past Failures His Congregants Say He Is Their Role Model And Mentor.
By Tomoeh Murakami, INQUIRER SUBURBAN STAFF
AUDUBON — Pastor Chad Hinson remembers the frustration he felt growing up in inner-city Camden, the hardships of his nomadic life, and the calming feeling of liquor. When the 27-year-old pastor sermonizes about drunkenness and the evils of addiction, or the need to be strong enough to survive alone, he connects, said many of the members of his rapidly expanding New Strength Gospel Church in Audubon. That is because, they said, the pastor bears the years he spent bar-hopping in Camden and roaming in Oakland, Calif., where he went shortly after dropping out of Camden High School his sophomore year. "My fuel for preaching is the pain of my failures and people's rush to judgment on my failures," Pastor Hinson said. "I thought the way to be successful was ripping and running the streets."
But he turned his life around, went to Bible school, and two years ago founded the church. Its 350 members of mostly young, working-class Camden residents say he is their mentor, role model and inspiration. "I used to sleep around," said Sherri Watkins, 27, of Camden. "I'm not promiscuous anymore, and I don't get high. When I heard about his lifestyle and how he came up, I felt like I could do the same. . . . My life is changed." The church, based on a blend of black Baptist and Pentecostal thought, is a part of a local, 40-church grouping called the Abundant Harvest Fellowship of Churches. Sitting in his modest office in the church, Pastor Hinson, the youngest of seven siblings, recalled his youth with a faint, sentimental smile that made him appear slightly older than his years.
The pastor, who lives in Lindenwold with his wife, Ebony, and three children, explained in a deep, firm voice how he had grown up wishing for a figure to look up to, someone who would understand his needs, draw out his thoughts. "I was fighting, drinking," he said of his four years in California, where he waited on tables and did other odd jobs to survive. He enrolled in a high school there, but dropped out again. "Finally, I had no other place to go," he said. "I had burned so many bridges, I had no one to turn to. The only bridge I had not burned was that to Jesus."
Frustrated with his life, Pastor Hinson, who grew up in a churchgoing family, returned to Camden at age 21, passed the General Education Development test, and enrolled in the Philadelphia College of Bible, completing his bachelor of arts degree in biblical studies two years ago. Driven with a passion to "feed" the needy, he founded the church in January 1998. After several Bible study sessions at his home, which was then in Camden, he started giving sermons at the Holiday Inn in Runnemede, with the help of friends and acquaintances from area churches where he had begun preaching.
It did not take long to establish a steady flow of followers, who spread word of the young, passionate minister. In September 1998, Pastor Hinson moved the growing congregation to a small white building at Nicholson Road and Brittin Avenue. These days, hundreds of people pack the place each Sunday for his two morning services. "We wanted to design a church that would take the needs of the people first," Pastor Hinson said. "Our theme is just to keep it real, down to earth."
The church has nine ministers, and they lead 25 spiritual leadership groups. The groups include ministries for drugs, youth, recreation, marriage and women, and they meet throughout the week at the church. "Our church is full of ex-prostitutes, ex-drug dealers, ex-drug addicts," said Todd McNair, a deacon. "This is a spiritual hospital. [Pastor Hinson] is like nobody I have ever seen. He could apply the Bible to everybody."
"When I met [Pastor Hinson in 1997], he was driving a Subaru Legacy with no door handles, and a doughnut on one wheel," said McNair, who helped launch the church. "But he bought plane tickets for three women to go to a women's conference in Atlanta. Really, he couldn't afford to, but it changed their lives." Although Pastor Hinson said he believed many of those who knew him when he was young "would drop to the floor" if they found out he was preaching, old friends and family members said they had seen it coming all along.
"He was always a people person," said Tiffany Stark, a classmate at Camden High. "Even in high school, he was a leader because when he talked, everybody listened." Val Lawrence, a cousin, remembered the teenage Hinson as "wild and adventurous." "But he was also down to earth and really, really truthful. He's always been like that," she said. After back-to-back sermons yesterday, Pastor Hinson said slowly and with the calm of a person who had found his place in the world: "This is me. I'll do this till the day I die. If I have to preach on the corner, I'll never stop."


Rentzel Pump Manufacturing offers the largest range of pump diameters than any other Multi-Stage horizontal Pump Company in the industry. Desgined to increase head and effenciency while decreasing length and vibration. Rentzel Pump offers traditional compression style pump to adapt to current designs and offers larger diameter bolted bowl designs (Premium Technology) as proven alternate giving our customers the input and knowledge to decide what is best for their application.
Bearing stability is critical in all applications. The incorrect bearing in a application can result in premature failure and cause unwarranted repairs to other items in the system. Make sure to duscuss the fluid characteristics with you representative to ensure that the right bearing is designed in your application.
The majority of applications are not standard and in most cases require more than just one metallurgy. Rentzel Pump has invested in a wide range of mettalurgies to be available for each application. Individualized patterns for each metallurgy prevent deducts and losses that others may provide. Our wide selection of metals avialable allows Rentzel Pump to provide the Best in Class pump for your application.
Rentzel Pump Manufacturing offers one of the largest range of pump selections in the industry. We are constantly updating our product line so if you do not see your pump listed or the design you are looking for please contact your representative.