1. On 2/7/2026, the petitioner took out a Motion on Notice under Articles 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 35, 55, 72 and 201 of the Constitution of Kenya. He sought two conservatory orders; viz, to restrain the respondents from conducting the National Youth Council ward, constituency, or National Youth Congress elections until they have fully complied with the National Youth Council (Election of Certain Council Members) Regulation, 2021.
2. He also sought to compel them to publish a verified and publicly accessible final voters register, a complete register of all cleared aspirants, conduct adequate civic education across all counties, constitute and gazette the 290 constituency election steering committees and appoint and train all election officials. These orders were to last until the Petition is fully heard and determined.
3. After hearing Learned Counsel, and since the matter was extremely urgent as the impugned elections were slated for the following day, the Court allowed the application for reasons to be delivered on 18/9/2026. These then are the reasons for the ruling that allowed the application.
4. The petitioner contended that he was a K enyan youth aged 27 years and residing within Kisumu County. A Chairperson of Kisumu Youth, a Community based Youth Forum that agitate for the interests of the youth of Kisumu. He was eligible to vote in the National Youth Council elections. He had tried to verify his voter registration status but was unable as there had been no publication of the voter register contrary to Regulation 15(2) of the National Youth Council (Election of Certain Council Members) Regulations, 2021 (‘the Regulations’). That such publication was required to be published seven days before the commencement of the elections.
5. He did not know the names of the aspirants in his constituency as no register of aspirants had been published contrary to Regulation 28 of the Regulations. That there had been no civic education, public communication regarding the elections, including polling centres, election officials, or dispute resolution mechanisms in breach of Regulations 20, 21 and 22. These should have been in place by 6/5/2026. This is so notwithstanding that Gazette Notice No. 5586 of 17/4/2026 had designated the election dates.
6. He further contended that the 290 Constituency Steering Committees had not been constituted in breach of Regulation 6(3) and (4) of the Regulations. No returning officer and other election officials had been appointed contrary to Regulations 24 and 25. No nominations had been undertaken contrary to Regulations 33 and 34.
7. That a letter dated 30/6/2026 seeking clarification on the status of the election had gone unheeded. He therefore sought that the said elections be suspended pending compliance with the law.
8. The application was responded to vide the Replying Affidavit of Sarah Jumma sworn on 3/7/2026 . She stated that she was a State Counsel in the office of the Attorney General who had the conduct of the matter on behalf of the respondents. That the application had been overtaken by events as the Principal Secretary had that morning issued a press release postponing the elections indefinitely. That there was therefore no valid cause of action before Court.
9. Ms. Muturi appearing for the petitioner submitted that under Article 10 of the Constitution, values of transparency, accountability and public participation were core in matters public policy. That Article 55 required that measures be put in place to ensure meaningful participation by the youth. That to proceed with the elections as scheduled would breach all the regulations referred to in the application. She urged the Court to allow the application.
10. Ms. Jumma appeared for the respondents. She opposed the application on the grounds that the elections had been postponed indefinitely. That the postponement was meant to give time to the respondents to comply with the regulations. That the press release had identified gaps which needed to be addressed. She urged the Court to dismiss the application.
11. This is an application for conservatory orders pending the hearing of the main Petition. These orders are akin to interlocutory injunctions. They are based under Article 23(3) (C) of the Constitution and Rule 23 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013. They are meant to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of the Petition.
12. The principles applicable were laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gatirau Pater Munya vs Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others (2014) eKLR . These are that an applicant must establish a prima facie case raising a serious constitutional issue deserving argument, that there is real danger that the Constitution will be violated thereby render the Petition nugatory and the Court is to consider public interest and balance of convenience.
13. On prima facie, the Court will only look at two Articles of the Constitution, viz, Articles 10 and 55. They command that in matters pertaining to public policy, there should be transparency, accountability and public participation. One of the principles thereunder is the rule of law.
14. In the present case, there were allegations, that were established, that various provisions of the law, to wit, The National Youth Council (Election of Certain Council Members) Regulations were about to be violated as enumerated by the petitioner. The carrying out of the elections would have been in breach of the law thereby defeating the principle of Rule of Law under the Constitution.
15. Further, although the election dates were gazette way back on 17/4/2026, there had been no communication by the respondents on the preparation for the same. Everyone including the petitioner was in the dark as to the names of the aspirants, nominations, polling centres, requisite registers amongst many other requirements of a transparent and accountable election. If anything was being done, which this court doubts, then the same was being done so opaquely as not to be permitted in a democratic society.
16. Article 55 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that: -
“The State shall take measures, including affirmative action programmes, to ensure that the youth –
a) …
b) have opportunities to associate, be represented and participate in political, social, economic and other spheres of life.
c) …
d) …”
17. One of the opportunities of realizing this aspiration is the impugned elections. By deciding to undertake the impugned elections in an opaque, irrational and discreet manner, the respondents were outrightly hell bent in breaching this provision of the Constitution. That would not be allowed.
18. In Nairobi Metropolitan PSV Sacco Union vs County of Nairobi Government (2013) eKLR , it was held that a Court must weigh in favour of preservation of constitutional values.
19. In view of the foregoing, the Court was satisfied that the petitioner had established a prima facie case and that several constitutional values were threatened by the impugned election. That if the election was allowed to be continued with then or any other time without the safeguards sought in prayer No. 3 of the Motion, those principles and values of the Constitution would have been breached.
20. Where does the public interest and balance of convenience lie? These lay in granting the conservatory orders sought. The respondents had had nearly 90 days from 17/4/2026 to plan and arrange for the elections. They did absolutely nothing. A public-spirited person, Hon. Senator Okiyah Omutatah, in his usual public-spirited characteristic manner of swiftly seeking accountability where it is required, wrote to the 1st respondent on 30/6/2026 seeking certain clarifications on the impugned elections. That request fell on deaf ears.
21. To this Court’s mind, it was obvious that the respondents were least concerned with the Constitutional values alluded to. They were not keen to observe them. They were hell bent on violating them. The Press Release of 3/7/2026 was an afterthought. The Court rejected it as it did not have any force of law. The respondents could go back on the same. From the evidence on record, impunity did not seem to be far from them. They had already ignored a request for clarification by a honourable member of the Senate of this Country.
22. For the foregoing reasons, it was imperative to allow the Motion and direct the respondents to act in accordance with the law. Those then were the reasons for the orders of 2/7/2026. The costs of the Motion shall abide the outcome of the Petition.
It is so ordered.
2. He also sought to compel them to publish a verified and publicly accessible final voters register, a complete register of all cleared aspirants, conduct adequate civic education across all counties, constitute and gazette the 290 constituency election steering committees and appoint and train all election officials. These orders were to last until the Petition is fully heard and determined.
3. After hearing Learned Counsel, and since the matter was extremely urgent as the impugned elections were slated for the following day, the Court allowed the application for reasons to be delivered on 18/9/2026. These then are the reasons for the ruling that allowed the application.
4. The petitioner contended that he was a K enyan youth aged 27 years and residing within Kisumu County. A Chairperson of Kisumu Youth, a Community based Youth Forum that agitate for the interests of the youth of Kisumu. He was eligible to vote in the National Youth Council elections. He had tried to verify his voter registration status but was unable as there had been no publication of the voter register contrary to Regulation 15(2) of the National Youth Council (Election of Certain Council Members) Regulations, 2021 (‘the Regulations’). That such publication was required to be published seven days before the commencement of the elections.
5. He did not know the names of the aspirants in his constituency as no register of aspirants had been published contrary to Regulation 28 of the Regulations. That there had been no civic education, public communication regarding the elections, including polling centres, election officials, or dispute resolution mechanisms in breach of Regulations 20, 21 and 22. These should have been in place by 6/5/2026. This is so notwithstanding that Gazette Notice No. 5586 of 17/4/2026 had designated the election dates.
6. He further contended that the 290 Constituency Steering Committees had not been constituted in breach of Regulation 6(3) and (4) of the Regulations. No returning officer and other election officials had been appointed contrary to Regulations 24 and 25. No nominations had been undertaken contrary to Regulations 33 and 34.
7. That a letter dated 30/6/2026 seeking clarification on the status of the election had gone unheeded. He therefore sought that the said elections be suspended pending compliance with the law.
8. The application was responded to vide the Replying Affidavit of Sarah Jumma sworn on 3/7/2026 . She stated that she was a State Counsel in the office of the Attorney General who had the conduct of the matter on behalf of the respondents. That the application had been overtaken by events as the Principal Secretary had that morning issued a press release postponing the elections indefinitely. That there was therefore no valid cause of action before Court.
9. Ms. Muturi appearing for the petitioner submitted that under Article 10 of the Constitution, values of transparency, accountability and public participation were core in matters public policy. That Article 55 required that measures be put in place to ensure meaningful participation by the youth. That to proceed with the elections as scheduled would breach all the regulations referred to in the application. She urged the Court to allow the application.
10. Ms. Jumma appeared for the respondents. She opposed the application on the grounds that the elections had been postponed indefinitely. That the postponement was meant to give time to the respondents to comply with the regulations. That the press release had identified gaps which needed to be addressed. She urged the Court to dismiss the application.
11. This is an application for conservatory orders pending the hearing of the main Petition. These orders are akin to interlocutory injunctions. They are based under Article 23(3) (C) of the Constitution and Rule 23 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013. They are meant to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of the Petition.
12. The principles applicable were laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gatirau Pater Munya vs Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others (2014) eKLR . These are that an applicant must establish a prima facie case raising a serious constitutional issue deserving argument, that there is real danger that the Constitution will be violated thereby render the Petition nugatory and the Court is to consider public interest and balance of convenience.
13. On prima facie, the Court will only look at two Articles of the Constitution, viz, Articles 10 and 55. They command that in matters pertaining to public policy, there should be transparency, accountability and public participation. One of the principles thereunder is the rule of law.
14. In the present case, there were allegations, that were established, that various provisions of the law, to wit, The National Youth Council (Election of Certain Council Members) Regulations were about to be violated as enumerated by the petitioner. The carrying out of the elections would have been in breach of the law thereby defeating the principle of Rule of Law under the Constitution.
15. Further, although the election dates were gazette way back on 17/4/2026, there had been no communication by the respondents on the preparation for the same. Everyone including the petitioner was in the dark as to the names of the aspirants, nominations, polling centres, requisite registers amongst many other requirements of a transparent and accountable election. If anything was being done, which this court doubts, then the same was being done so opaquely as not to be permitted in a democratic society.
16. Article 55 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that: -
“The State shall take measures, including affirmative action programmes, to ensure that the youth –
a) …
b) have opportunities to associate, be represented and participate in political, social, economic and other spheres of life.
c) …
d) …”
17. One of the opportunities of realizing this aspiration is the impugned elections. By deciding to undertake the impugned elections in an opaque, irrational and discreet manner, the respondents were outrightly hell bent in breaching this provision of the Constitution. That would not be allowed.
18. In Nairobi Metropolitan PSV Sacco Union vs County of Nairobi Government (2013) eKLR , it was held that a Court must weigh in favour of preservation of constitutional values.
19. In view of the foregoing, the Court was satisfied that the petitioner had established a prima facie case and that several constitutional values were threatened by the impugned election. That if the election was allowed to be continued with then or any other time without the safeguards sought in prayer No. 3 of the Motion, those principles and values of the Constitution would have been breached.
20. Where does the public interest and balance of convenience lie? These lay in granting the conservatory orders sought. The respondents had had nearly 90 days from 17/4/2026 to plan and arrange for the elections. They did absolutely nothing. A public-spirited person, Hon. Senator Okiyah Omutatah, in his usual public-spirited characteristic manner of swiftly seeking accountability where it is required, wrote to the 1st respondent on 30/6/2026 seeking certain clarifications on the impugned elections. That request fell on deaf ears.
21. To this Court’s mind, it was obvious that the respondents were least concerned with the Constitutional values alluded to. They were not keen to observe them. They were hell bent on violating them. The Press Release of 3/7/2026 was an afterthought. The Court rejected it as it did not have any force of law. The respondents could go back on the same. From the evidence on record, impunity did not seem to be far from them. They had already ignored a request for clarification by a honourable member of the Senate of this Country.
22. For the foregoing reasons, it was imperative to allow the Motion and direct the respondents to act in accordance with the law. Those then were the reasons for the orders of 2/7/2026. The costs of the Motion shall abide the outcome of the Petition.
It is so ordered.