Nasa, Jubilee ordered to respond to poll suit

Supreme Court judges on September 20, 2017 arrive in court to deliver a detailed ruling that led to the annulling of the presidential election. The poll was cancelled by a majority decision. PHOTO | KANYIRI WAHITO | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • The petitioners have argued that the judgment was based on flaws.
  • They argue that the case ought to be heard urgently because it might be overtaken by events.

Nasa and Jubilee have been directed to respond to a suit filed by two businessmen who want the Supreme Court to reverse its judgement on the presidential election petition.

Mr Jackson Ndegwa and Mr Edward Kings Onyancha appeared before Supreme Court Deputy Registrar Daniel ole Keiwua on Monday, when it emerged that Nasa and Jubilee were yet to respond to the case.

The two outfits were directed to file their responses by Monday.

REPEAT POLL
The application by the two businessmen was rejected by Mr Keiwua last month but they have filed an appeal and will now appear before a single judge of the Supreme Court.

In their case documents, Mr Ndegwa and Mr Onyancha argued that there is need to overturn the decision nullifying the August 8 presidential election so as to save the country from spending Sh12 billion in the repeat polls.

In the appeal, the two argue that the Supreme Court should be the last court to sustain and enforce procedural technicalities against a party at the expense of justice.

VIOLATION
They appeared before Mr Keiwua on September 18, but he declined to admit their case.

They now argue that the case ought to be heard urgently because it might be overtaken by events.

According to the two, the case raises very serious constitutional issues and legal principles, therefore the move by Mr Keiwua to dismiss the case is a violation of the Constitution.

RULING
According Mr Ndegwa, the deputy registrar erred in law and fact.

The Supreme Court, by a majority decision, nullified the August 8 presidential election, citing irregularities and illegalities in the transmission of results.

But the petitioners have argued that the judgment was based on flaws, was illegal and therefore should be reversed.