Poll petitions to take six months, rules Supreme Court

Kirinyaga Governor Anne Waiguru, her deputy and supporters celebrated outside the Supreme Court on August 6, 2019 after an election petition appeal filed by Narc-Kenya leader Martha Karua was dismissed. PHOTO | SAM KIPLAGAT | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • The judges made the ruling in an appeal filed by Karua against Waiguru’s win.

  • Chief Justice David Maraga, Justices Mohamed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u and Isaac Lenaola said all applications by a respondent in an election petition, save for exceptional circumstances, should form part of the response to the petition.

All election petitions filed before the High Court must be heard and determined within six months, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday. The decision was made as the apex court brought to an end a long-standing electoral dispute between Kirinyaga Governor Anne Waiguru and Martha Karua.

LITIGANTS

Five judges said any proceedings after the lapse of the six-month period will be null and void.

Chief Justice David Maraga, Justices Mohamed Ibrahim, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u and Isaac Lenaola said all applications by a respondent in an election petition, save for exceptional circumstances, should form part of the response to the petition.

“Similarly, a petitioner should as much as possible file any application arising from his petition, for example, for scrutiny or recount at the same time as the petition,” the judges said in a decision read by Justice Lenaola.

The judges made the ruling in an appeal filed by the Narc Kenya leader after her petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeal last December. It was the second time the former minister had moved to the appellate court and this time, she was unlucky as the court said they did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute because it was outside the six-month period.

But she moved to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal misapprehended Article 87 of the Constitution and Section 75(2) of the Elections Act. She argued that the said law was not intended to bar innocent litigants, who through no fault of their own, get their cases remitted back for trial after a successful appeal.

JURISDICTION

In her petition, Ms Karua complained of violations of electoral law, bribery of voters and exclusion of her agents but the High Court struck the petition on a technicality. She moved to the Court of Appeal and a bench of three judges ordered that the petition be heard afresh by the High Court.

Justice Lucy Gitari heard the petition afresh, necessitating the second appeal, but Justices Roselyn Nambuye, Hannah Okwengu and Gatembu Kairu dismissed the case, saying they did not have jurisdiction to determine it.

But through lawyers Paul Nyamodi and Kamotho Waiganjo, Ms Waiguru said the appellate court exhaustively considered all grievances raised by Ms Karua.

“We sympathise with the petitioner who, without any fault of her own, has been locked out of the seat of justice,” the judges noted. They ordered each party to bear their costs.