Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

top

County News

Appeal Court validates Laikipia Governor’s poll victory

The court said the appeal by Sammy Waity lacked merit and that there was nothing to make the court overturn the decision of the High Court/FILE

NAIROBI, Kenya, Jul 31 – The Court of Appeal has upheld the poll victory of Laikipia Governor Ndiritu Muriithi saying he was validly elected.

The court said the appeal by Sammy Waity lacked merit and that there was nothing to make the court overturn the decision of the High Court.

Justices Asike Makhandia, Fatuma Sichale and Sankale ole Kantai said that Waity’s view that Muriithi should not have been cleared to contest the election having switched camps days to the election lacked basis.

They said the petitioner should have appealed against the decision or filed a judicial review but not raise the matter in an election court.

Waity however said that he will move to the Supreme Court to contest the decision.

The court also observed that the main petitioner withdrew from the case and the High Court was right in rejecting the affidavits supporting the case.

Waity was also grateful that the costs slapped on him by the High Court were reduced from Sh12 million saying it was excessive and unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal capped the amount to Sh1.5 million each for the Governor, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) and Returning Officer.

In another petition, the judges upheld the election of Mbeere South MP Geoffrey King’ang’i saying the petitioner Peter Kamau Nyutu failed to prove any of the allegations he made.

Nyutu claimed that the MP bribed voters, used witchcraft to bind voters before the elections and that his agents were denied access to the polling stations

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

The said none of the allegations were proved by Nyutu.

The judges further said the notice of appeal was not properly filed before the Appellate Court.

They added that the Returning Officer Consolata Muthoni satisfactorily explained cases where there were alterations because the forms were countersigned by the presiding officers.

About The Author

Comments
Advertisement

More on Capital News