Sonko asks court to dismiss petition

Thursday November 23 2017

Nairobi governor Mike Sonko follows the

Nairobi governor Mike Sonko follows the proceedings at Milimani law courts during the hearing of an election petition challenging his win on November 16, 2017. He has filed an application seeking the dismissal of the case. PHOTO | PAUL WAWERU | NATION MEDIA GROUP 

By SAM KIPLAGAT
More by this Author
By MWANGI NDIRANGU
More by this Author

Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko on Thursday filed an application seeking to strike out a petition challenging his poll victory.

Through his lawyers Harrison Kinyanjui and Cecil Miller, Mr Sonko said the petition by Mr Japheth Muroko and Mr Zacheus Okoth was defective as it failed to include the name of his deputy Polycarp Igathe as a respondent.

According to the application, Mr Okoth failed to disclose his address and other important particulars.

PETITION

“Such non-compliance is fatal and cannot be cured by amendments. The window to secure any lawful amendment to the petition has since closed,” the city county boss said.

He added that striking the petition out “will save precious judicial time and resources and avoid unnecessary litigation beyond the point it has reached”.

Mr Sonko also said the petitioners attached different results from what was gazetted by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission.

The case could not proceed as the court was informed that Mr Anthony Oluoch, the petitioners’ lawyer, was ill.

The application will be heard on December 4.

BARRED

Meanwhile, the petitioner challenging the election of Laikipia Governor Ndiritu Muriithi suffered a blow Thursday when the High Court barred seven witnesses from testifying.

The court said two of the witnesses presented by Mr Sammy Ndung’u were incompetent as they did not swear affidavits before the case began.

The ruling came a day after the court ordered affidavits of five other witnesses removed from its records, knocking out their evidence.

The court had given a reprieve to the petitioner on Monday when it ruled that the five witnesses from Sosian Ward would testify.

However, the following day, it reviewed what it termed as an error in that order and barred them from testifying.