1. Before this Court is the Notice of Motion dated 22 nd June 2026 by which the Petitioner/Applicant DORCAS WANGARI seeks the following orders:
“1. SPENT
2. SPENT
3. THAT pending the Hearing and Determination of this Petition a CONSERVATORY ORDER do issue staying/halting the Implementation of the Gazette Notice No. 5586 issued by the Cabinet Secretary for Youth Affairs, Creative Economy and Sports, in so far as it applies to the Elections of Council Members of the National Youth Council.
4. Costs be in the cause.”
2. Despite having been properly served with the application and notice of the hearing date none of the named Respondents filed any reply to the application. The application was canvassed orally on 2 nd July 2026 and on 3 rd July 2026 the court issued an ‘ex tempore’ ruling. Here now is the full reasoned ruling.
BACKGROUND
3. The genesis of this Petition is the Gazette Notice Number 5586 of 17 th April 2026 issued by the Cabinet Secretary for Youth Affairs, Creative Economy and Sports Hon. Salim Mvurya (hereinafter ‘the cabinet secretary’) designating the dates and timelines for elections of the National Youth Council Officials as follows:-
• Ward Lever Elections scheduled to take place from the 5 th of July 2026;
• Constituency Level Elections scheduled to take place form the 16 th July 2026;
• National Youth Congress Elections scheduled to take place from the 27 th of July 2026.
4. The Applicant challenged the constitutionality of the said Gazette
Gazette Notice on the following grounds:-
(i) Lack of public participation and engagement.
(ii) Violation of rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
(iii) Unlawful limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms.
(iv) Disproportionality.
(v) Irrationality .
(vi) Unreasonableness.
(vii) Violation of legitimate expectation.
5. By the application the Applicant who describes herself as a champion of youth affairs in Kenya and an avid follower of the democratic processes governing the National Youth Council sought interim orders to stay the elections pending the hearing and determination of her petition.
6. As stated earlier none of the names Respondents filed a reply to the application.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
7. I have carefully considered the application before this court as well
as the affidavit filed in support thereof.
8. The principles guiding the issuance of injunctive orders were set out in the celebrated case of GIELLA -VS- CASMAN BROWN & CO. LTD [1973] EA as follows:-
(i) The Applicant must first establish a prima facie case with a probability of success.
(ii) The Applicant must demonstrate that he stands to suffer irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages.
(iii) Where there is any doubt on the above then the Applicant must show that the balance of convenience tilts in his favour.
9. The ruling in the Giella case was reinforced in the case of NGURUMAN LIMITED -VS- JAN NIELSON & 2 Other [2004] BONDE eKLR in which the Court of Appeal held as follows;-
“ In an interlocutory injunction application, the applicant has to satisfy the triple requirements to;
(a) establish his case only at a prima facie level.
(b) demonstrate irreparable injury if a temporary
injunction is not granted, and
(c) Ally any doubts as to (b) by showing that the balance of convenience is in his favour. These are the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction, interlocutory or permanent. It is established that all the above three conditions and stages are to be applied as separate, distinct, and logical hurdles that the applicant is expected to surmount sequentially.”
10. The question therefore would be whether the applicant has established a ‘ Prima facie case’ . In the case of MRAO LTD -VS- FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF KENYA LIMITED & 2 Others [2003] eKLR the Court of Appeal defined a ‘prima facie case’ as:-
“a case in which on the material presented to the Court, a tribunal property directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter.”
11. It is not the duty of this court to comment on the merits or otherwise
of the main petition. My duty at this stage is only to determine
if a prima facie case has been made out.
12. The Applicant challenges the constitutionality of the gazette notice on grounds that no sufficient public participation was conducted. However the Petitioner did admit that the cabinet secretary did carry out civic education through digital platforms but claims that this online engagement led to the exclusion of numerous youth in the rural areas.
13. It is common knowledge that virtually all youth in all corners of this country have access to mobile phones through which they are able to access various media platforms. Indeed it is said that Kenyan Youth are the largest consumer of virtual networking in the world.
14. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate how the public digital engagement by the 2 nd Respondent fell short. Public participation did not require that all youth give their opinion and there was no evidence of deliberate attempts by the Respondents to exclude any bonafide stakeholders.
15. The petitioner did not prove clear and intentional attempts by
the Respondents to keep Kenyan youth out of the public participation exercise. The Gazette Notice in question clearly indicated that elections were to take place three (3) months later. In my view
this gazette notice constituted adequate and effective notice.
16. Finally I find that the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case to warrant the orders sought. The Notice of Motion dated 22 nd June 2026 is dismissed in its entirety. Costs will be borne by the Petitioner.
Dated in Nyeri this 24 th day of July 2026.
HC CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. E013 OF 2026 RULING Page 7 of 7
“1. SPENT
2. SPENT
3. THAT pending the Hearing and Determination of this Petition a CONSERVATORY ORDER do issue staying/halting the Implementation of the Gazette Notice No. 5586 issued by the Cabinet Secretary for Youth Affairs, Creative Economy and Sports, in so far as it applies to the Elections of Council Members of the National Youth Council.
4. Costs be in the cause.”
2. Despite having been properly served with the application and notice of the hearing date none of the named Respondents filed any reply to the application. The application was canvassed orally on 2 nd July 2026 and on 3 rd July 2026 the court issued an ‘ex tempore’ ruling. Here now is the full reasoned ruling.
BACKGROUND
3. The genesis of this Petition is the Gazette Notice Number 5586 of 17 th April 2026 issued by the Cabinet Secretary for Youth Affairs, Creative Economy and Sports Hon. Salim Mvurya (hereinafter ‘the cabinet secretary’) designating the dates and timelines for elections of the National Youth Council Officials as follows:-
• Ward Lever Elections scheduled to take place from the 5 th of July 2026;
• Constituency Level Elections scheduled to take place form the 16 th July 2026;
• National Youth Congress Elections scheduled to take place from the 27 th of July 2026.
4. The Applicant challenged the constitutionality of the said Gazette
Gazette Notice on the following grounds:-
(i) Lack of public participation and engagement.
(ii) Violation of rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
(iii) Unlawful limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms.
(iv) Disproportionality.
(v) Irrationality .
(vi) Unreasonableness.
(vii) Violation of legitimate expectation.
5. By the application the Applicant who describes herself as a champion of youth affairs in Kenya and an avid follower of the democratic processes governing the National Youth Council sought interim orders to stay the elections pending the hearing and determination of her petition.
6. As stated earlier none of the names Respondents filed a reply to the application.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
7. I have carefully considered the application before this court as well
as the affidavit filed in support thereof.
8. The principles guiding the issuance of injunctive orders were set out in the celebrated case of GIELLA -VS- CASMAN BROWN & CO. LTD [1973] EA as follows:-
(i) The Applicant must first establish a prima facie case with a probability of success.
(ii) The Applicant must demonstrate that he stands to suffer irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages.
(iii) Where there is any doubt on the above then the Applicant must show that the balance of convenience tilts in his favour.
9. The ruling in the Giella case was reinforced in the case of NGURUMAN LIMITED -VS- JAN NIELSON & 2 Other [2004] BONDE eKLR in which the Court of Appeal held as follows;-
“ In an interlocutory injunction application, the applicant has to satisfy the triple requirements to;
(a) establish his case only at a prima facie level.
(b) demonstrate irreparable injury if a temporary
injunction is not granted, and
(c) Ally any doubts as to (b) by showing that the balance of convenience is in his favour. These are the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction, interlocutory or permanent. It is established that all the above three conditions and stages are to be applied as separate, distinct, and logical hurdles that the applicant is expected to surmount sequentially.”
10. The question therefore would be whether the applicant has established a ‘ Prima facie case’ . In the case of MRAO LTD -VS- FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF KENYA LIMITED & 2 Others [2003] eKLR the Court of Appeal defined a ‘prima facie case’ as:-
“a case in which on the material presented to the Court, a tribunal property directing itself will conclude that there exists a right which has apparently been infringed by the opposite party to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the latter.”
11. It is not the duty of this court to comment on the merits or otherwise
of the main petition. My duty at this stage is only to determine
if a prima facie case has been made out.
12. The Applicant challenges the constitutionality of the gazette notice on grounds that no sufficient public participation was conducted. However the Petitioner did admit that the cabinet secretary did carry out civic education through digital platforms but claims that this online engagement led to the exclusion of numerous youth in the rural areas.
13. It is common knowledge that virtually all youth in all corners of this country have access to mobile phones through which they are able to access various media platforms. Indeed it is said that Kenyan Youth are the largest consumer of virtual networking in the world.
14. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate how the public digital engagement by the 2 nd Respondent fell short. Public participation did not require that all youth give their opinion and there was no evidence of deliberate attempts by the Respondents to exclude any bonafide stakeholders.
15. The petitioner did not prove clear and intentional attempts by
the Respondents to keep Kenyan youth out of the public participation exercise. The Gazette Notice in question clearly indicated that elections were to take place three (3) months later. In my view
this gazette notice constituted adequate and effective notice.
16. Finally I find that the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case to warrant the orders sought. The Notice of Motion dated 22 nd June 2026 is dismissed in its entirety. Costs will be borne by the Petitioner.
Dated in Nyeri this 24 th day of July 2026.
HC CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. E013 OF 2026 RULING Page 7 of 7