REPUBLIC OF
KENYA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
KENYA AT NAIROBI
(Coram: Maraga, CJ & P,
Mwilu, DCJ & V-P, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki S. Ndung’u and
Lenaola, SCJJ)
ELECTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2017
BETWEEN
- RAILA AMOLO ODINGA …………….………………….….1ST
PETITIONER - STEPHEN KALONZO MUSYOKA ……………………..…2ND
PETITIONER
AND
- INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND
BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION……………..….…………1ST RESPONDENT
- CHAIRPERSON, INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL
AND
BOUNDARIES COMMISSION……..…….……..2ND
RESPONDENT
- H.E UHURU MUIGAI KENYATTA……..……..……….3RD
RESPONDENT
DETERMINATION OF PETITION
WITHOUT REASONS
(Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the
Supreme Court (Presidential Election Rules) 2017
[1] The hearing of
this Petition was concluded on Tuesday, 29th August 2017
well after 9.00 p.m. The Judges thereafter retreated to
deliberate on the following issues for determination as crafted by
the court:
(i) Whether the 2017
Presidential Election was conducted in accordance with the
principles laid down in the Constitution and the law relating to
elections.
(ii) Whether there were
irregularities and illegalities committed in the conduct of the
2017 Presidential Election.
(iii) If
there were irregularities and illegalities, what was their impact,
if any, on the integrity of the election?
(iv)
What consequential orders, declarations and reliefs should this
court grant, if any?
[2] Having carefully
considered the above issues, the following is the majority decision
of the court with two Judges (J.B Ojwang and N. S. Ndung’u SCJJ)
dissenting):
- As to whether the 2017 Presidential Election was conducted in
accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution and
the law relating to elections, upon considering inter alia
Articles 10, 38, 81 and 86 of the Constitution as well as, Sections
39(1C), 44, 44A and 83 of the Elections Act, the decision of the
court is that the 1st Respondent failed, neglected or
refused to conduct the Presidential Election in a manner consistent
with the dictates of the Constitution and inter alia the
Elections Act, Chapter 7 of the Laws of Kenya.
- As to whether there were irregularities and illegalities
committed in the conduct of the 2017 Presidential Election, the
court was satisfied that the 1st Respondent committed
irregularities and illegalities inter alia, in the
transmission of results, particulars and the substance of which
will be given in the detailed and reasoned Judgment of the court.
The court however found no evidence of misconduct on the part of
the 3rd
- As to whether the irregularities and illegalities affected the
integrity of the election, the court was satisfied that they did
and thereby impugning the integrity of the entire Presidential
Election.
[3] Consequent upon the
above findings, and as to what orders, declarations and reliefs
this court should grant, the following are the orders of the court
pursuant to Article 140(2) and (3) of the Constitution and Rule 22
of the Supreme Court (Presidential Election) Rules:
- A declaration is hereby issued that the
Presidential Election held on 8th August 2017 was not
conducted in accordance with the Constitution and the applicable
law rendering the declared result invalid, null and
void;
- A declaration is hereby issued that the
3rd Respondent was not validly declared as the President
elect and that the declaration is invalid, null and
void;
- An order is hereby issued directing the
1st Respondent to organize and conduct a fresh
Presidential Election in strict conformity with the Constitution
and the applicable election laws within 60 days of this
determination under Article 140(3) of the
Constitution.
- Regarding costs, each party shall bear its own
costs.
[4] A detailed Judgment
containing the reasons for this decision and the dissents will be
issued within 21 days of this determination in conformity with Rule
23(1) of the Supreme Court (Presidential Elections) Rules, 2017 as
it is otherwise impossible with the limited time the court has, to
do so.
[5] It is so
ordered.
DATED and
DELIVERED at NAIROBI this
1st Day of September,
2017
…………………………………………..
……………………………………………
- K. MARAGA P. M. MWILU
CHIEF JUSTICE &
PRESIDENT
DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE & VICE
OF THE SUPREME
COURT
PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
……………………………………….
…………………………………………….
- B.
OJWANG
S. C. WANJALA
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
………………………………………….
……………………………………………..
- S. NDUNG’U
I.
LENAOLA
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
I certify that this is a
true copy
of the
original
REGISTRAR
SUPREME COURT OF
KENYA
Download the full Copy of Court Order of Kenyan Supreme
Court
kenya
REPUBLIC OF
KENYA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
KENYA AT NAIROBI
(Coram: Maraga, CJ & P,
Mwilu, DCJ & V-P, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki S. Ndung’u and
Lenaola, SCJJ)
ELECTION PETITION NO. 1 OF 2017
BETWEEN
- RAILA AMOLO ODINGA …………….………………….….1ST
PETITIONER - STEPHEN KALONZO MUSYOKA ……………………..…2ND
PETITIONER
AND
- INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND
BOUNDARIES
COMMISSION……………..….…………1ST RESPONDENT
- CHAIRPERSON, INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL
AND
BOUNDARIES COMMISSION……..…….……..2ND
RESPONDENT
- H.E UHURU MUIGAI KENYATTA……..……..……….3RD
RESPONDENT
DETERMINATION OF PETITION
WITHOUT REASONS
(Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the
Supreme Court (Presidential Election Rules) 2017
[1] The hearing of
this Petition was concluded on Tuesday, 29th August 2017
well after 9.00 p.m. The Judges thereafter retreated to
deliberate on the following issues for determination as crafted by
the court:
(i) Whether the 2017
Presidential Election was conducted in accordance with the
principles laid down in the Constitution and the law relating to
elections.
(ii) Whether there were
irregularities and illegalities committed in the conduct of the
2017 Presidential Election.
(iii) If
there were irregularities and illegalities, what was their impact,
if any, on the integrity of the election?
(iv)
What consequential orders, declarations and reliefs should this
court grant, if any?
[2] Having carefully
considered the above issues, the following is the majority decision
of the court with two Judges (J.B Ojwang and N. S. Ndung’u SCJJ)
dissenting):
- As to whether the 2017 Presidential Election was conducted in
accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution and
the law relating to elections, upon considering inter alia
Articles 10, 38, 81 and 86 of the Constitution as well as, Sections
39(1C), 44, 44A and 83 of the Elections Act, the decision of the
court is that the 1st Respondent failed, neglected or
refused to conduct the Presidential Election in a manner consistent
with the dictates of the Constitution and inter alia the
Elections Act, Chapter 7 of the Laws of Kenya.
- As to whether there were irregularities and illegalities
committed in the conduct of the 2017 Presidential Election, the
court was satisfied that the 1st Respondent committed
irregularities and illegalities inter alia, in the
transmission of results, particulars and the substance of which
will be given in the detailed and reasoned Judgment of the court.
The court however found no evidence of misconduct on the part of
the 3rd
- As to whether the irregularities and illegalities affected the
integrity of the election, the court was satisfied that they did
and thereby impugning the integrity of the entire Presidential
Election.
[3] Consequent upon the
above findings, and as to what orders, declarations and reliefs
this court should grant, the following are the orders of the court
pursuant to Article 140(2) and (3) of the Constitution and Rule 22
of the Supreme Court (Presidential Election) Rules:
- A declaration is hereby issued that the
Presidential Election held on 8th August 2017 was not
conducted in accordance with the Constitution and the applicable
law rendering the declared result invalid, null and
void;
- A declaration is hereby issued that the
3rd Respondent was not validly declared as the President
elect and that the declaration is invalid, null and
void;
- An order is hereby issued directing the
1st Respondent to organize and conduct a fresh
Presidential Election in strict conformity with the Constitution
and the applicable election laws within 60 days of this
determination under Article 140(3) of the
Constitution.
- Regarding costs, each party shall bear its own
costs.
[4] A detailed Judgment
containing the reasons for this decision and the dissents will be
issued within 21 days of this determination in conformity with Rule
23(1) of the Supreme Court (Presidential Elections) Rules, 2017 as
it is otherwise impossible with the limited time the court has, to
do so.
[5] It is so
ordered.
DATED and
DELIVERED at NAIROBI this
1st Day of September,
2017
…………………………………………..
……………………………………………
- K. MARAGA P. M. MWILU
CHIEF JUSTICE &
PRESIDENT
DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE & VICE
OF THE SUPREME
COURT
PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
……………………………………….
…………………………………………….
- B.
OJWANG
S. C. WANJALA
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
………………………………………….
……………………………………………..
- S. NDUNG’U
I.
LENAOLA
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
I certify that this is a
true copy
of the
original
REGISTRAR
SUPREME COURT OF
KENYA
Download the full Copy of Court Order of Kenyan Supreme
Court
kenya
Read more https://nairalaw.com/copy-of-court-order-of-kenyan-supreme-court-on-raila-odinga-vs-uhuru-kenyatta/