1,408 total views, 2 views today
BY CORRESPONDENT,NYERI,15TH DEC 2017-The twist and turns pitting Kirinyaga county governor Ann Waiguru and Narc-Kenya leader Martha Karua over petition challenging Waiguru’s victory seems to be far from over.
This is after Karua moved to the Court of Appeal to challenge High Court’s decision to dismiss her petition against the election of Waiguru as governor.
Through lawyer Gitobu Imanyara Karua wants the ruling by Lady Justice Lucy Gitari set aside, saying the judge was biased in the matter and applied double standards.She also blames the judge for capping the costs of the suit at Sh10 million to her, saying the move and the figure was punitive since the case had not proceeded to hearing.
On Justice Gitari’s decision to term the petition “hopeless, defective and incurable”, Ms Karua says the judge used intemperate language in her conduct and ruling.
She argues that the judge imported extraneous matters to the petition.
Ms Karua says the judge ignored results of electoral materials scrutiny conducted pursuant to her orders issued on October 23, 2017.
“The results of the scrutiny were available to her and thereby occasioned great prejudice to the petitioner,” says Mr Imanyara.
The High Court, tImanyara says, should have examined and appreciated the pleadings in the petition to entirety.
“The judge failed by not finding that the petition raised weighty issues of law for investigations and determination by the court in accordance with the constitution and other applicable laws,” he explains.
Mr Imanyara also disputes the judge’s decision to dismiss the petition over failure to indicate the results of the disputed election and the date they were declared by the electoral agency.
According to him, the judge would have found that tabulation of the results received by each candidate in an election was a statutory function of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).
In the petition, Ms Karua and her running mate Gachoko Gitari named Ms Waiguru and the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) as respondents.
“The judge erred in law by holding that the respondents would be prejudiced by the petitioner’s failure to include date of declaration of results when the same was on record and was brought to her attention,” Mr Imanyara says.