The 2nd Petitioner’s Submissions: 38. The 2nd Petitioner further urged his submissions dated 24th May 2022. case through 39. He argued that the decision-making process by IEBS was an administrative action and is the one that led to the publishing of the impugned notice. 40. While relying various decisions including Municipal Council of Mombasa -vs- Republic & Umoja Consultants Ltd Civil Appeal No. 185 of 2001, Council for Civil Service Unions vs. Minister for Civil Service [1985] A.C. 374 and the one in Pastoli -vs- Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300 on the parameters that guide a Judicial Review Court to quash an unfair administrative action, the 2nd Petitioner submitted that this Court has the obligation to examine the impugned notice as against the principles of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. 41. The 2nd Petitioner reiterated that IEBC failed to devise an administrative mechanism to ensure that the two-third gender principle was realized among political parties during nomination exercises for Parliamentary election despite Orders of Court. 42. He submitted further that since the Interested Parties and Political Parties were not party to the Katiba Case, the Respondent was duty bound to bring it to the attention of all the parties not involved the orders therein. 43. He further asserted that in view of the election Calendar issued by IEBC requiring nominations to be concluded by 22nd April 2022, the impugned notice was issued contrary to the IEBC’s own road map for elections since it was published after political parties had already concluded nominations. 44. He submitted that irrationality of the impugned notice derived from the fact that it placed the burden of failure to comply with the twothirds gender principle on candidates and that it imposed communal punishment on all candidates by barring them from elections. Judgment – Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petitions No. E211 of 2022 & JR No. E071 OF 2022 written Page 10 of 59