Martha Karua appeals ruling on petition against Anne Waiguru

Narc-Kenya leader Martha Karua. She has appealed against the judgment that dismissed her case against Anne Waiguru. PHOTO | FILE | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • The High Court dismissed a petition filed by Ms Karua challenging the election of Kirinyaga Governor Waiguru.
  • Ms Karua was ordered to Sh10 million as the cost of the petition.
  • She says the judge ignored results of electoral materials scrutiny conducted pursuant to her orders of the court dated October 23, 2017.

Narc-Kenya leader Martha Karua has moved to the Court of Appeal to challenge High Court's decision to dismiss her petition against the election of Kirinyaga Governor Anne Waiguru.

Ms Karua wants the ruling by Lady Justice Lucy Gitari set aside, saying the judge was biased in the matter and applied double standards.

COSTS

The former Justice and Constitutional minister faults 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.

According to the memorandum of appeal filed at the Appellate Court registry in Nyeri, Ms Karua says the judge blundered by striking out the case after conducting a pre-trial conference and fixed dates for hearing of the main suit.

Through lawyer Gitobu Imanyara, Ms Karua says the judge ignored results of electoral materials scrutiny conducted pursuant to her orders issued on October 23, 2017.

RESULTS

“The results of the scrutiny were available to her and thereby occasioned great prejudice to the petitioner,” says Mr Imanyara.

The High Court, the lawyer 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).

BIAS

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.

"She failed to appreciate that declaration of results of election is a statutory function of IEBC and all election results are published in Kenya gazette. To which the judge ought to have taken judicial notice of."

He further argues that the judge accepted the respondents’ submissions from the bar but rejected Ms Karua’s submissions terming them “evidence from the bar”, thus exhibiting unlawful double-standards and bias against the petitioner.
In the disputed poll results, Ms Waiguru garnered 161,373 votes while Ms Karua got 122,091 votes.