Source: http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/90949/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:43:09+00:00

Document:
This was a petition against the declaration of the 1st respondent (Timothy Moseti) as the Member of the National Assembly for Kitutu Masaba Constituency by the 2nd Respondent, who was the Returning Officer of the 3rd Respondent (Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission), following the General Election of the 4th March 2013, whereupon the 2nd Respondent certified that the 1st Respondent had received the highest number of votes in the said parliamentary election. The Petition was premised on grounds which included bribery, misspelling of the petitioner’s names, deployment of relatives as polling clerks and alterations in form 35 among others.
i) What was the standard of proof for the offence of bribery in an election petition?
ii) Whether misspelling of a candidate’s name could lead to nullification of an election.
iii) Whether the deployment of relatives of a candidate as polling clerks could be said to affect the election outcome.
iv) Whether alterations in form 35 which were not countersigned could be said to have affected the accuracy of the election results.
Electoral law – election petition – standard of proof in election petitions – where there were allegations of bribery – testimony by witnesses that they witnessed bribery of voters – where the testimony was premised on the 1st respondent’s dress code on the voting day – whether in the circumstances the offence of voter bribery had been proved.
Electoral law – election results – accuracy in recording election results – where there had been alterations on form 35 which were not countersigned – claim by the petitioner that such alterations affected the accuracy of the results – whether alterations on form 35 could be said to affect the final result.
Electoral law – invalidation of elections – where there were allegations of breach of election law – whether non-compliance with election law could lead to invalidation of elections – the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, article 105; the Elections Act 2011, section 83.
The standard of proof for election offences which were of criminal nature had to be proved to the same standard of beyond reasonable doubt applicable to criminal proceedings.
Clear and unequivocal proof was required to prove an allegation of bribery. Mere suspicion was not sufficient. Though it was not easy to prove bribery, more especially where it was done in secrecy. In such cases, perhaps bribery could be inferred from some peculiar aspects of the case but when it was alleged that bribery took place publicly and in the presence of many people, the court could not be satisfied by anything less than the best evidence which was always direct evidence given first hand. Simon Nyaundi Ogari & another v Hon. Joel Omagwa Onyancha & 2 others  KLR.
The Petitioner had to show more than just consistent dress of the 1st respondent in various polling stations in proving that he or his agents bribed voters to vote for him. That type of evidence was in this petition short in coming and of lower degree than the required standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. In view of the seriousness of the charge it would be expected that the petitioner and the witnesses would have reported the matter to the police and follow up with the arrest and prosecution of the 1st respondent for the election offence.
The legal burden of proof was on the petitioner with the evidential burden shifting from time to time in the course of the petition proceedings upon proof by firm and credible evidence.
It could not be strongly argued that on the basis only of distant degree of consanguinity, the polling clerks could be presumed to carry out their duties in a manner to favour the 1st Respondent or otherwise result in a conflict of interest between carrying out their statutory duties and any loyalty. Further, no allegation was made and proved that the 1st Respondent benefitted in any way from the deployment of the said clerks at the Polling station.
No matter how close the affinity or relationship of itself was not sufficient; it had to be shown that it had an effect on the election, that the relative of the candidate was in a position to and did alter or otherwise influence the outcome of the election. This was not the case in the instant petition.
The General Election of 2013 comprised elections to six different elective positions; this must have increased six-fold the probabilities of innocent human errors in computation of the figures entered as votes for the respective candidates, the tallying and subsequent record thereof in the Constituency Form 36. It was not inconceivable and therefore definitely not inexcusable that the election officials who conducted the six elections over a period of three days would have in human probability made errors in their record of the elections.
There was no requirement that the entries on Form 35 or any other form be without alteration. The constitutional requirement for accuracy in election system could not be construed to mean that the statutory forms for the recording of the results of an election must never have errors, corrections or alterations. Accuracy did not mean free from error which had been corrected, an impossibility in all human endeavour; accuracy would be served, if there existed a means of verification of the entries to test for their accuracy and it necessarily imported corrections by alterations, whether countersigned or not.
For the non-compliance of the election law to be held to affect the result, it had to affect the final outcome of the election: that an outcome substantially different from that declared would on account of the irregularities or breaches of the law result. The proved non compliance with the election law did not affect the result and the final outcome, of the election in terms of section 83 of the Elections Act, the election could not be invalidated.
The name of a candidate was not the only means of identification in a ballot paper. There were other means which included the candidates' political party's name, symbol and colour. The irregularity in the misspelling of the name of one of the candidates (PW2) was not a substantial non compliance with the election law and did not in any way affect the result of the election.
Petition dismissed with costs to the respondents.
THAT the 2nd respondent and or his subordinate electoral officers locked out and or denied the duly appointed agents of one Reuben Motari Okibo and Walter E. N Osebe access to the polling station and or tallying hall.
THAT the 2nd respondent and or his subordinate electoral officers caused the arrest and detention of Reuben Motari Okibo.
THAT the 2nd respondent and or his subordinate electoral officers omitted, neglected and denied the duly appointed agents of one Reuben Motari Okibo and Walter E. N Osebe from accessing and or signing Form 35 contrary to the Act and the Regulations.
THAT the 2nd respondent omitted, neglected and intentionally manipulated the results from the polling stations in favour of the 1st respondent by inflating and or reducing the votes cast, rejected or spoilt and indicated them in (Form 36) the final results contrary to the Act and Regulations.
THAT the 2nd respondent and or the electoral officers under him refused to show and give copies to the agents appointed by Reuben Motari Okibo and Walter E. N Osebe, Form 35 which was the primary document in the said electoral process.
THAT the 2nd respondent and or the electoral officers under him failed to indicate all the names of the agents appointed by each candidate at each and every polling station and failed to give reasons for refusal to sign Form 35 as well as give statutory comments.
THAT the 2nd respondent and or the electoral officers under him neglected, failed and oar refused to properly fill and sign form 35 and validate the results with IEBC stamp.
THAT the 2nd respondent entered on the tally sheet results different from those indicated on form 35 and announced at the polling stations.
THAT the 2nd respondent and or the electoral officers under him allowed more agents at the polling stations than the number of candidates.
THAT the 2nd respondent and or the electoral officers under him employed relatives of one of the candidates hence compromising the outcome of the results.
THAT the 2nd respondent and or the electoral officers under him doctored and or altered results without countersigning them and without giving the duly appointed agents of the candidates an opportunity to know the reasons for the altering and doctoring.
THAT the 2nd respondent announced unsigned results from some polling stations and included them in the tally sheet when the same were invalid.
THAT the votes cast at Rigoma DEB Primary School (025) polling station were more than the registered voters thus rendering the process null and void. There were only 993 voters but the votes cast were 1,808 as declared by the presiding officer.
Riabore DOK Primary School Polling Station.
The 2nd respondent in entering wrong entries in the tally sheet declared the 1st respondent as the winner which should not have been the case.
The 2nd respondent in arresting and detaining Reuben Motari Okibo denied him the right to participate in the elections.
The 2nd respondent denied the candidates the right to have the votes cast recounted inspite of oral request to do so contrary to the Act and Regulation.
The 2nd respondent failed to take control of the tallying process and thereby allowed the clerks to enter into the tally sheet figures neither representative of the votes cast in particular stations and nor in agreement with Forms 35 and 36.
The 2nd respondent having made many wrong entries in the tally sheet also failed to make the correct calculations so as to arrive at the correct totals.
“(a) THAT it be ordered that there be a scrutiny of the votes recorded as having been cast in the parliamentary elections in the constituency.
(b) THAT it be ordered that there be a recount of the ballot papers cast at the elections in the constituency.
(c) THAT the said parliamentary elections in Kitutu Masaba Constituency be determined and declared null and void.
(d) THAT the said election of the 1st respondent to the National Assembly be declared null and void.
The petition was supported by the affidavits the petitioner and 6 witnesses all of whom testified during the trial. The 1st respondent filed a Response supported by his affidavit while the 2nd and 3rd respondents filed their Response supported by affidavits of the 2nd respondent and three other deponents, two of whom were called as witness during trial.
The substance of the Respondents’ composite case was that the Respondents were not in breach of the constitution or the Elections Act or any other law relating to elections; that the respondents had not committed any election offences and the 1st respondent had been validly elected and declared Member of National Assembly for Kitutu Masaba. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents admitted minor transposition errors at Riabore polling station (014) causing a gain of 76 votes to the 1st Respondent and a loss of 148 votes to the runner-up, which did not affect the final outcome of the final result of the election.
The prayers for scrutiny and recount of votes in the constituency sought in prayers (a) and (b) of the petition were urged through a Notice of Motion dated 20th May 2013, which, though filed early in the proceedings, was argued on 23rd August 2013 after all the evidence for the parties had been adduced before the court. The Court in its ruling of 30th August 2013 declined the application for scrutiny and recount on the principal grounds that no sufficient basis had been shown for the order and that the 8000 plus margin of votes between the winning candidate and the runners-up was big and there was not demonstrated any probability that the gap could be bridged upon recount.
Whether the irregularities or breaches of election law, if proved, were of such nature or magnitude as to amount non compliance with the constitution and election law.
(3) Parliament shall enact legislation to give full effect to this Article.
The criteria upon which to consider the question whether a person has been validly elected as a member of parliament [as indeed any other elective post] is set out in the standards of the constitutional political rights, the qualifications of the persons to be elected to the position and the compliance of the particular election with the election law set out in the Constitution, the Elections Act, the Rules and Regulations made there-under. The provisions for qualifications and disqualifications for election as a Member of Parliament are set out under Article 99 of the Constitution but nothing turns on that in this election petition.
For a candidate’s election to be validated under Article 105 of the Constitution, it must appear to court that the person was duly qualified for election as a Member of Parliament and that he was elected in a free and fair election consistent with the set constitutional standards. Accordingly, for a petitioner to succeed in a petition challenging the declaration of a person as validly elected, he must demonstrate that the person was not qualified [where applicable], or that the election was not free and fair within the meaning and standards of the Constitution.
In addition to the constitutional provisions on voting requirements under Article 86 set out above, parliament is empowered under Article 82 of the Constitution to enact legislation for the conduct of elections, whereby the Elections Act, 2011 has been enacted. By Article 82 (2) of the Constitution, the legislation required for the conduct of elections is required to ensure that the voting at every election is (a) simple (b) transparent and (c) takes into account the special needs of persons with disabilities and others with special needs.
When considered together the provisions of the Constitution and the Elections Act on the voting rights and method or process of voting, the injunction in section 83 must mean that a valid election must accord to the ‘principles laid down in the Constitution and in that written law’ and deviations from the provisions must not be of a scale, nature or character as to affect the result of the election.
It follows that a valid election must in principle accord to these principles, and that in the case of non-compliance with the law enacted to give effect to these principles, such non-compliance must not affect the result of the election because then the will of the electors would be defeated rather than upheld, as required under Article 38 of the Constitution.
If the irregularities had affected the result.
“Nothing that I can find in Woodward v. Sarsons touches on election which is affected in its result by errors which are not substantial but are all in the day’s work of fallible human beings inevitably prone to ordinary human mistakes. The judgment does not reveal what the court’s view was of such an election either at common law or under the Ballot Act 1872.
If substantial breaches of the law are, as I think, enough to invalidate an election though they do not affect its results, it follows that contrary to the opinion of the Division Court, trivial breaches which affect the result must also be enough. I cannot hold that both a substantial breach and an effect on the result must be found in conjunction before the court can declare an election void. There does not appear to be any decision which binds this court to hold so; and I am glad to find my view of the section confirmed by the opinions expressed by the editor of Halsbury’s Laws on Woodward v. Sarsons, and by the editors of Atkin’s Encyclopaedia of Court Forms on the law laid down by ss. 16(3) and 37(1).
Save for the omission of the word ‘substantially’ in our section 83 of the Elections Act, 2011 the terms of the provision are materially similar to the English Act and there is good cause to read the word ‘substantially’ into section 83 of the Elections Act not for any reason of symmetry but for purposes of ridding our provision of a glaring internal contradiction. As it stands, section 83 of the Elections Act has a contradiction in its terms in that it purports to excuse non-compliance with the any written law subject to compliance with the principles of the Constitution and the law: if there were full compliance with the Constitution and the law, then there would be no non-compliance to be excused! I think the word ‘substantially’ must be read into the section to make it intelligible.
Accordingly, the petitioner must to succeed demonstrate either that the election was so badly conducted as to be substantially in contravention of the Constitution and the Election law or that deviations from the election law is such as to affect the result of the election.
Before setting to examine the discharge or otherwise of the plaintiff’s onus of proof set out above, the court must make a determination as to the validity of various Forms 35 attached to the Petition by way of annextures to the supporting affidavit of the petitioner. The documents were attached to the petitioner’s affidavit to demonstrate the various claims made by the petitioner as regards their due execution, completion by the election officials and attestation by agents for the candidates as well as the data entries thereon regarding the record of the election. The petitioner claimed during his testimony in court that he obtained the set of purported Form 35s from unnamed agents of his political party and other parties. The respondents objected to the documents as fabrications of the petitioner to support his petition.
The documents presented by the petitioner were incomplete and not signed by the presiding officers of the polling stations concerned and they invariably contained entries and information inconsistent with the official documents presented by the 2nd respondent save for the Form 35 on Rigoma Polling station of which the official IEBC (3rd respondent) form had similar entries with the petitioner’s form except with regard to the item on votes cast. Being the official body charged with the conduct of elections under the constitution, the IEBC’s documents presented by the 3rd respondent through its officer the 2nd respondent must be taken to be the official record of the elections and in the event of conflict with any other documents purporting to be the IEBC documents the ones presented by the IEBC and its official set of documents must prevail.
The petitioner indeed admitted on cross examination that authentic Form 35s would be from the Commission, and further confirmed that the Forms presented by the Commission were complete and signed by the presiding officers.The Presiding Officer for the Rigoma polling station (DW4) confirmed that the Form 35 purported to record the data on election at the polling station did not emanate from him. In addition, the presiding officer in charge of receipt of results from the polling stations testified that he would not have accepted Form 35s which were not signed by the presiding officers for the particular stations and whose results on the votes scored by the respective candidates did not tally with the entry on valid votes cast. When cross-examined on his set of Forms, the petitioner was unable to state and name the agents who had given him the forms, and none of the alleged agents were called as witnesses to confirm that they obtained the incomplete forms from the presiding officers of the polling stations.
Accordingly, I am unable to hold that the petitioner has with regard to the Form 35s attached to the supporting affidavit to the petition presented credible evidence to demonstrate any irregularities to warrant the shifting of the evidential burden to the Respondents to rebut the petitioner’s evidence. The petitioner’s set of documents purporting to be Form 35s are rejected as invalid. The examination of the petitioner’s case with regard to irregularities respecting the results entries will therefore fall to be determined on the basis only of the Form 35s presented by the 2nd and 3rd respondents as the lawful custodians of the official results form.
In seeking to demonstrate that the conduct of election in the constituency was contrary to the Constitution and election law, the petitioner presented his case under the following rubrics, and I find it convenient to consider the petition under the same headings.
The petitioner claimed as an act of intimidation that the respondents caused the arrest and detention in police custody at Keroka Police Station of the petitioner and the petitioner’s witness PW2 for varied periods between the 4/3/13 and 6/3/13. PW1 (the Petitioner) and PW2 who was one of the candidates for the Member of Parliament seat the subject of this petition were allegedly arrested by police at Omoti Road Junction in the Constituency where the two had met for the hand over by PW2 for distribution by the petitioner (PW1) of identification badges and oaths of secrecy for their party’s agents in the election to enable them participate in the election. The election materials for the agents had allegedly been brought from the petitioner’s party headquarters in Nairobi late in the night before the election and the PW2 required the assistance of the petitioner to distribute the materials to the agents in the constituency to enable them access the polling stations.
So far as this court is aware, the matter is still pending trial before the criminal court at Kisii Law Courts.
PW2, moreover, gives contradictory testimony that he had called the 2nd respondent seeking his help to have them released on the reasoning that the 2nd respondent had authority over the police at the time. If it was the 2nd respondent who had ordered their arrest and detention, how would they seek assistance for their release from the same person who caused their arrest.
First, it is not true as pleaded in Paragraph 7 (b) of the petition that the arrest and detention of the PW2 denied him the right to participate in the elections as the witness confirmed in testimony before the court that he had already voted by the time of the arrest. Second, such allegation of intimidation of any voter by a private person or a member of the Electoral Commission is a criminal offence, respectively, under sections 63 (3) and 59 (d) of the Elections Act, which must be proved to the required standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner and PW2 must demonstrate that the respondents were responsible for their arrest in having ordered or instigated the arrest. Mere suspicion or allegation that the 2nd respondent must have caused the arrest of the two because under the regulations the administration police were during the polling exercise under the authority of the 2nd and 3rd respondents is not sufficient.
Third, that the 1st respondent might have had a motive to cause the arrest and detention of the PW2 who claimed to have been winning the election is no proof of the offence, for under section 9 of the Penal Code the motive for an act or omission constituting an offence is irrelevant. While the 2nd Respondent had supervisory authority over the administrative police at the polling stations, he did not have any authority over incidents taking place outside the polling stations and the Petitioner and PW2 confirmed that their arrest had taken place at a road junction and not at any polling station. Hence the call for assistance from the 2nd respondent Returning Officer. I do find that the petitioner has proved that the Respondents caused his arrest and that of the PW2, and therefore the allegation of intimidation has not been established.
However, the clear line of causation is broken by the petitioner’s and PW2 failure to prove that their arrest and detention was authorized or instigated by the Respondents. They did not for instance call for the Occurrence Book at the Police station to show who the complainant was or the person who authorized the arrest. To be sure, the delay in delivery of the party badges according to the evidence was caused by late delivery of the badges from the party headquarters in Nairobi on the night before the election and the failure by PW2 to arrange for their distribution to the agents until 11.00am when he was arrested on the aforesaid allegations, despite the polling stations opening at 6.00am.
PW3 did not prove that he had been beaten by agents of the 1st respondent for his failure to support the candidate as alleged. He was not able to demonstrate that the persons who assaulted him were truly agents of the 1st respondent. He only said they were his supporters. He did not prove the assault by any medical examination record such as the Police Form P3 which he said he had taken out. He also did not produce the Occurrence Book record of the incident at the Polling station. I do not find that the act of assault by agents or supporters of the 1st respondent was proved.
“7. THAT the third respondent without any colour of right unlawfully mispelt my name as Reuben Motari Okibo instead of Reuben Motari Okibo and this misled voters during election day.
Before the election the candidates were gazetted. I saw the gazette and my name was clearly spelt. There was also the party symbol properly appearing and my photograph was correctly carrying my face. The ballot paper carried the passport size photo of me correctly. The party symbol was also correct but my names were not okay. I was called before I noted that my name was misspelled. I went to the polling station to confirm. I voted after confirming that they were in a mess. I confirm that I voted for myself.
My names were misspelt. It created a good impact on the electorate. My constituents are well educated. When they came to the polling station, they found out the names on the ballots were not clear. I expect that arising from the misspelling; some voters may have been swayed to vote for my competitors.
In the present case, the witness PW2 Reuben Motari Okibo confirmed that the electorate in his constituency were well educated and it must therefore be taken that they could not easily be misled into not voting for the witness on account only of misspelling of his first name Reuben as Rueben, particularly where the witness confirmed his photograph and party symbol were on the ballot paper. Moreover, as noted by JR Karanja J. in the Chedotum case, supra, the illiterate assisted voters were more likely to rely on the party symbol and photograph of the candidate than the spelt name. I do not find that the irregularity in the misspelling of the PW2s name was substantial non compliance with the election law or that it in any way affected the result of the election.
The allegation was that the 2nd and 3rd respondents, their subordinate staff denied the duly appointed agents for one Reuben Motari Okibo PW2 and one Walter E. N. Osebe from accessing the polling station and or tallying hall. PW1 and PW2 testified that they were arrested before they could distribute identification badges and other documents to their party’s agents. If the purpose of the badges and letters of appointment and oaths of secrecy were for purposes, as conceded by the petitioner, of gaining access to the polling and or tallying station, how could their agents who did not have these documents be allowed in the polling stations and tallying hall?
Clearly, if person could not show his appointment as an agent by means of letter of appointment, badge and oath of secrecy as a means of demonstrating that he was an authorized agent under regulation 62 of the Elections (General) Regulations, 2012 he could not lawfully be admitted into the polling station or tallying centre. I therefore do not find any merit in this complaint.
I find this explanation a reasonable answer to this complaint. The question is whether in these circumstances, the agents who came in late but could demonstrate that they were properly appointed by their agents in accordance with the rules could be refused participation. I do not think so as that would infringe on the candidates’ right to be represented in the election exercise.
Relying on Regulation 62 (2) which provides “notwithstanding sub regulation (1), the presiding officer shall admit to the polling station not more than one agent for each candidate or political party” it was contended for the petitioner that there should have been no more and no less than 14 agents signing Form 35s. It is true that at Nyamare SDA (084) six agents signed yet the polling station had not recorded any particulars of agents. In other stations more or fewer agents than the number of candidates participating in the parliamentary election signed the Form 35s and the respective presiding officers did not give any reasons as to why more or less agents signed the forms.
(6) The refusal or failure of a candidate or an agent to sign a declaration form under subregulation (4) or to record the reasons for their refusal to sign as required under this regulation shall not by itself invalidate the results announced under subregulation (2)(a).
If non-signing of the forms by the agents cannot invalidate an election, the signing of the forms by agents whether in more or less than the number of the candidates in the particular election should invalidate the election. It is an issue of first principles: the object of agents signing the Form 35 is to confirm the results contained therein. If it is signed by agents in other elections taking place alongside the particular election, there cannot be a valid objection to such ‘over-confirmation’ unless it can be shown to have affected the result adversely in some way.
“Those agents who were duly appointed by their parties or candidates and who came late may have been allowed into the polling station without their names being recorded in the poll day diary….
There were 14 candidates, each party or candidate was supposed to include one agent at any given time because on the only one agent would be allowed to replace the other. At any given time, there were supposed to be more than 14 agents because of the various elective positions. It is not correct that the signing of form 35 was restricted to the 14 agents. Any agent present representing any party or any candidate present at the time of signing of form 35 could have been signed by any candidate or agreement in the elective positions without discriminating as to the elective post. If there was any reason for not signing form 35 the agents were allowed to give the reasons. It is the agent who would give the reason for refusal to sign….
I would agree that if the purpose is to confirm the contents of the Form 35, all accredited agents present at the time the results are announced, whether representing the candidates in the particular election or other candidates in other elections may sign the Form 35. It must be observed that the 2013 General Election involved election for 6 positions with some elections as here having over 10 candidates. If all the political parties appointed agents and the various candidates also appointed their personal agents as they were entitled to there would be over 20 agents per election. If the both agent for the candidate and the agent for the party signed to express their concurrence with the result there would understandably be a huge turnout of agents signing the Form 35. This would still accord with the Regulation 62 (2) that “the presiding officer shall admit to the polling station not more than one agent for each candidate or political party.” I do not therefore find that any irregularity has been proved in this regard.
The petitioner has proved that there were alterations in the Form 35s, the primary result documents in some polling station, some of which were not countersigned by the presiding officers and or the agents. The petitioner submitted that the form 35s should not have been interfered with since they were the primary documents. DW3 Jones Bitange Nyabio, the presiding officer in charge of receiving the Form 35s from the presiding officers in the polling stations admitted that there were alterations in 39 polling stations, 14 of which were counter-signed.
There is no requirement that the entries on Form 35 or any other form be without alteration. The constitutional requirement for accuracy in election system cannot be construed to mean that the statutory forms for the recording of the results of an election must never have errors, corrections or alterations. Accuracy does not mean free from error which has been corrected, an impossibility in all human endeavor; accuracy will be served, if there exists a means of verification of the entries to test for their accuracy and it necessarily imports corrections by alterations, whether countersigned or not.
DW2 and DW4, respectively the Presiding Officer in charge of receiving the Form 35s and the Returning Officer, testified as to how they checked the forms for accuracy by comparing the totals of scores by candidates against the valid votes cast and confirmation that the figure was below the figure of registered voters for the Polling station. The witnesses gave a formula that the votes cast is equal to the rejected votes plus the valid votes cast the latter which is in turn equal to the total of the votes for each of the candidates, which one could use to establish the accuracy of the entries in the statutory Forms.
The over writing and alterations show the votes cast as 396 and the valid votes as 393. The number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate correctly adds up to 393. But when you calculate for the votes cast, that is the valid votes cast added to the rejected votes 02 the figure is (393 + 02) 395 whereas it is shown with alteration as 396, a difference of 1 vote.
The overwriting and alteration do not have an effect on the total number of valid votes cast 507-1=506. This figure is the same as the totals of the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate and will not affect the results.
The overwriting of the figure 5 on the valid votes cast in favor of WALTER ENOCH NYAMBATI OSEBE does not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is equivalent to the total number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate and will not affect the results.
The cancellation on number of rejected votes and the cancellation on number of valid votes cast in figures and in words does not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is equivalent to the total number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The cancellation on the total number of votes cast does not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is 453-1= 452. 452 is the same figure you find after adding the totals of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
There is an alteration on the figure 6 on the total number of votes cast and figure 5 on the total number of valid votes cast which does not affect the total number of valid votes cast 662-9=653 which is equivalent to the total valid votes in favor of each candidate.
The cancellation on the figure 433 and the words therein do not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is 433. When you subtract the rejected votes from total number of votes cast you get 434-2 =432 but calculating the total valid votes cast in favor of each candidate you find 433 votes in this polling station 1 vote is not accounted for.
Overwriting of figure 2 on total number of votes cast and figure 7 on number of rejected votes does not affect the total number of valid votes cast 822-7=815 which is equivalent to the total of valid votes cast and is the same as the total of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The overwriting of figure 6 and 8 and the overwriting of the words eight on the total number of valid votes cast does not affect the number of valid votes cast when you subtract number of rejected votes from total number of votes cast 649-1=648 which is equivalent to the total number of valid votes cast for each candidate.
Overwriting of figures for SHADRACK JOHN MOSE, TIMOTHY MOSETI BOSIRE, TOM NYAYIEMI MOGAKA and VICTOR SWANYA does not affect the total number of votes cast which is 410-3=407 same as the total number of valid votes cast for each candidate.
The alteration of figure 8 on number of rejected votes and the overwriting of figure 8 on the total number of valid votes cast does not affect the total number of votes cast which remains as 606-8=598 which is less by 1 vote to the number of votes cast in favor of each candidate which comes to 597.
The overwriting of figure 8 on total number of votes cast does not affect the total number of valid votes cast 518-32=486 which is equivalent to the number of votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The cancellation on number of rejected votes and overwriting on the figure on total number of valid votes cast does not affect the number of valid votes cast which is 600-7=593 which is equivalent to the total number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The overwriting of figure 4 in number of rejected votes does not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is 424-4=420 equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The alteration on total number of votes cast and number of rejected votes does not affect the total number of valid votes cast 454-5=449. 449 is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favour of each candidate.
The cancellation on the figures of total number of votes cast does not affect the total number of valid votes cast 559-5=554 which is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The alterations on total number of votes cast and number of rejected does not affect the total number of valid votes cast 584-20=562 which is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favour of each candidate.
The alteration of figures on total number of votes cast and number of rejected votes does not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is 345-4=341 which is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The cancellation of nil and altering with figure 0 does not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is 673-11=662. The overwriting on figure 4 of PHILIP NYAUNCHO BOSIRE and figure 1 on VICTOR SWANYA OGETO does not affect the total number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate which is 662.
Overwriting of figure 8 on total number of votes cast and figure 2 on number of rejected vote does not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is 428-2 =426 equivalent to the total of number of valid votes cast for each candidate.
The cancellation on the total of valid votes cast does not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is 495-4=491which is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The alteration of figure 3 on the number of rejected votes has not affected the total number of valid votes cast 599-3=596 which is equivalent to the total number of valid votes cast in favour of each candidate.
The alteration on figures in total number of valid votes cast does not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is 315-4=311 which is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favour of each candidate.
The alteration of figure 2 on the total number of votes cast does not affect the total number of valid votes cast 632-2=630 which is equivalent to the total of number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The overwriting of the word EIGHT on the total number of valid votes cast SIX HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN has not affected the total therein 625-6=619 which is equal to the total of the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The alterations on the number of rejected votes figure 10 and the total number of valid votes cast figure 2 does not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is 629-10=619 which is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The overwriting of the figure 0 on the number of spoilt votes does not affect the total number of valid votes 446-3=443 which is equal to the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The overwriting of the figures has not affected the number of valid votes cast which is 597-7=590 which is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The overwriting of figures for TIMOTHY MOSETI E. BOSIRE and TOM NYAYIEMI MOGAKA does not affect the total number of votes cast which is 474 which is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The alterations on the total number of votes cast which figure in words is different does not affect the total number of votes cast which is 669-16=653 which is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The overwriting of figure 3 on the number of rejected votes does not affect the total number of valid votes cast 202-3=199 which is equivalent to the total number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The alteration of figure 1 on the total number of votes cast does not affect the total number of valid votes cast 591-5=586 which is equivalent to the total number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The alterations on total number of votes cast does not affect the figure on total number of valid votes cast which is 644-3=641 which is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The alteration on the number of rejected votes does not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is 583-11=572 which is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favour of each candidate.
The alteration of figure 1 on the number of rejected votes does not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is 343-1=342 which is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The alteration on the number of rejected votes figure 0 does not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is 369-05=364 which is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
The overwriting on the number of disputed votes does not affect the total number of valid votes cast which is 468-05=463 which is equivalent to the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
There are only 39 polling stations where there are alterations, cancellations or overwriting. They do not affect the total number of valid votes cast which are equivalent with the number of valid votes cast in favor of each candidate.
All the Form 35s presented by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents were duly signed dated and stamped by the Presiding Officers. However, not all contained comments in the space reserved for “statutory comments”. Save that there is provision on the Form 35, which records the results of an election, for a space for inserting ‘statutory comments’, there is no statutory requirement that the presiding officers must make comments on the form. It is of course a useful provision for the presiding officer to state his view on the polling exercise general or in particular references to notable occurrences at polling station that may explain the vote, turnout or other matter relevant to the election. The failure to give statutory comments cannot affect the election, the result of which is already captured in the foregoing sections of the Form 35. Indeed in many of the Forms 35 where the presiding officers have made comments entries like ‘free and fair’, ‘high turnout’, ‘results accepted by candidates and agents’, ‘N/A’, ‘voting went well’, ‘well done,’ ‘ agents left early’. Such comments, while giving some subjective perspective on the election exercise cannot be taken influence the result of the election. It would not stop a petitioner from challenging an election merely because the presiding officer gave it a clean bill of health in his statutory comments, and the court is never bound by the ‘statutory comments’. I do not therefore find that the failure by the presiding officers to give statutory comments in some named stations is an irregularity that amount to substantial non compliance with the constitution and law or one that affects the result of the election.
It was contended, indeed an exaggeration, that the 2nd and 3rd respondents contravened regulation 79 (2) (b) of election (general) regulations, 2012 in that they failed to use the standard and prescribed Form 35 at three named polling stations. The correct position is that for some three stations the forms had cancellation of the original name of the polling station to enable them be used by another station. The form remained the same Form 35 with the same particulars only the name and code of the station was changed to correspond with the polling station for which the details were inserted. There was however no countersignature either by the respective presiding officers or the agents.
The petitioner lamented the 2nd and 3rd respondent had adduced no documentary evidence to show that there were inadequate form 35 for the affected stations and or whether the original form 35 were supplied to the said station but were inadequate, and that they had failed to call the presiding officers for the affected stations to adduce evidence on what really happened to the original form 35s. It was submitted that these improvised form 35s were used to rig the election.
028 – Miriri DOK Primary School: My officers at Miriri DOK ran out of form s 35 so they had to source for the form from Guja which is a nearby station. The stations are about 5-8 minutes. The station is shown as station no. 28. Form 36 shows that 028 is the Guja DOK Primary not Miriri. Miriri is 026 and it s attached to my affidavit.
033 – Kiomoso Primary School: It is true that the form 35 is canceled to read Kiomoso Primary School and the code cancelled to read 33 instead of 032. In Miriri the officers omitted to cancel the code 028.
No explanation was given for the two other stations. The court notes, however, that the Forms used are not different from the prescribed form; it is only that they had been pre-printed and issued in the names of other station in the constituency which are crossed out and substituted the names of the stations in question. The stations for which the forms were preprinted have their Form 35s used intact as preprinted.
Most important is that it the duty of the petitioner to prove that the forms were used for rigging the elections and this the petitioner did not do in any way. No evidence by agents at those stations was adduced to show that the results were different from those declared in the Form 35s for the polling stations.
Further, the offence of bribery under section 64 of the Elections Act is a cognizable offence for which the police officers at the polling stations could by virtue of section 67 (2) of the Elections Act and section 29 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code arrest without warrant of arrest, or indeed any superior orders.
(a), to a fine not exceeding one million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six years or to both, and in any other case, to a fine not exceeding five hundred thousand shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.
(2) The offences specified in subsection (1) (a) shall be cognizable.
“Clear and unequivocal proof is required to prove an allegation of bribery. Mere suspicion is not sufficient. It is true that it is not easy to prove bribery, more especially where it is done in secrecy. In such cases, perhaps bribery may be inferred from some peculiar aspects of the case but when it is alleged that bribery took place publicly and in the presence of many people, the court cannot be satisfied by anything less than the best evidence which is always direct evidence given first hand”.
“10. That the 1st respondent himself and his agents were openly bribing voters with Ksh 50 and Ksh 100 notes in denominations in Rigoma Market.
11. That at Mosobeti and Riakwaro area, the 1st respondent and his agent one Charles Ondari Bernado bribed voters with Ksh. 100 to vote for the 1st respondnet”.
It is true that some of the witnesses described how the 1st respondent dressed in a brown (dark tan) or grey jacket (rain coat) on the polling day when he is alleged to have bribed voters. However, the consistency in this type of evidence is not indicative much less conclusive that the 1st respondent bribed voters. It might be expected that voters at a polling station where one of the candidate at the election visited would recall how was dressed, without in any way reflecting what the candidate did or said at the station.
The Petitioner must therefore show more than just consistent dress of the 1st respondent in various polling stations in proving that he or his agents bribed voters to vote for him. That type of evidence is in this petition short in coming and of lower degree than the required standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. In view of the seriousness of the charge it would be expected that the petitioner and the witnesses would have reported the matter to the police and follow up with the arrest and prosecution of the 1st respondent for the election offence. One would also expect a police officer to whom such an offence is reported to take action immediately and arrest the perpetrator because the offence is by virtue of section 67 (2) of the Elections Act a cognizable offence for which he can arrest without a warrant.
Some of witnesses PW4 PW5 and PW6 claimed to have reported the bribery to either the presiding officer and or the administrative police officers who were manning the polling stations. An attempt to report the matter to 2nd respondent is alleged to have aborted when the returning officer was said by his secretary to be out of office and the witness PW4 did not want to tell anyone else!
I saw the 1st Respondent at the station at about 4.00-4.10pm on 4/3/13. He was inside the polling station, and he even entered the polling room. He was in the company of a small group of people of about 8 people including the 1st respondent. He entered the polling room leaving the rest outside. He was dressed in a rain coat which was grey in colour. He left the polling room by a water tank and some people went to him, and I was told by one young man named Richard Omari that the 1st respondent was giving out money. I saw the 1st respondent giving out the money in denominations of 50 and 100 shillings and I asked him what he was doing. He did not answer and he ran away. I told the presiding officer and the police officer at the station. [paragraph 4 of this affidavit is read out to him in Kiswahili]. I confirm the statement in paragraph 4. I did not include the detail that I have given today in court. I only wrote the affidavit in swearing. I also did not write out my complaint. I only made report to the presiding officer and the Askari verbally. The water tank was outside the polling room about one metre [witness demonstrates one metre distance correctly]. We had more than 10 agents from the different parties at the polling station. I am not aware that anybody else saw the incident of bribery….
The police officer was armed. [It is put to the witness that the police officer should have been able to arrest the 1st respondent]. By the time I reported the matter to the presiding officer and police officer, the 1st respondent had left the station….
The Petitioner PW1 and PW2 were in police custody for most of the time when it was alleged that the 1st respondent bribed voters and cannot have witnessed any of the alleged incidents. From the evidence, the Petitioner and his witnesses did not deal with the serious issue of alleged bribery as they could have – no formal reports to authorities and no follow-up for the prosecution of the offence including if necessary private prosecution. Todate, no formal report has been made to the authorities and the 1st respondent has not been prosecuted for the bribery for which as a criminal offence there is period of limitation. Together with the fact that no proved first reports of the offence were made, this creates a doubt as to whether the alleged offence happened at all.
That PW4, as the only one of more than 10 agents from different parties present, witnessed the 1st respondent bribing voters at Nyatieno polling station and he informed the presiding officer and a police officer who could not arrest the culprit because he had in the meantime ran away, all happening inside 4 minutes is ludicrous! The Police officer could still had pursued and arrested the 1st respondent for the cognizable offence of bribery. One Richard Omari who allegedly told PW4 that the 1st respondent was giving out money was not called as a witness as with the people who allegedly told the PW6 that they were given money. All this evidence was hearsay.
The petitioner’s counsel raised doubts as to the authenticity of the letters pointing out that the letters were written in similar language used under consecutive references and even date indicating that they might have been written by one person. The 1st respondent (DW1) in his testimony in court explained that the police officers though working at different areas were based at the headquarters at the Manga and hence the common references in their letters. The Petitioner did not call the police officers who signed the three letters to deny they authored the said letters. Be this as it may, it remains the petitioner’s burden to prove bribery to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and it is not for the 1st respondent to prove his innocence. I do not find that the election offence of Bribery has been proved against the 1st Respondent.
The petitioner relied on Annexture marked PG4 which showed that valid votes cast as 1808 against a registered voter figure of 993 to support a claim at paragraph 22 of his affidavit and his testimony in court that those who voted were more than those registered at the station, that there was over-voting at Rigoma DEB Primary School. The presiding officer for the polling station DW2, however, testified that the Form 35 in the annexture PG4 was not his document. The court has already ruled as invalid the Form 35s in the petition having been disowned by the 3rd respondent as the body constitutionally mandated to oversee the elections and the petitioner not being able to point to a lawful source of the documents.
PW3 deponed in his affidavit that the presiding officer state the value of votes cast as 1808 and the registered voters 993, and during his cross-examination that he had seen the Form 35 at PG4 which showed the votes cast as 1808 at the station. He was not able to produce evidence of his registration at the polling station in question. Tested against the information in the 3rd Respondent Commission’s Form 35 which has no alterations and whose figures for the total scored by the candidates equal the valid votes cast at 771 and the rejected votes at 37 to make votes cast at 808, the assertion by the PW3 as to votes cast at 1808 is not credible.
“The petitioner’s wife had access to the rubber stamp since the polling station opened as the stamps were on my desk and the wife was in charge of my desk. She was also in charge of my bag at the time of counting of the votes. [witness is referred to paragraph 8 of his affidavit]. It shows that I assigned the petitioners wife duties. Assignment of duties is done before the polling station starts. I said I was not aware of any theft of the materials….
The form 35 papers were under my table and we waited until we started using them. I had given the clerk my bag containing the forms and the rubber stamps while I sorted and counted the votes cast. My deputy assisted me in the counting and sorting the votes. After I finished counting I ask the clerk who had the custody of my forms to give me a form 35 where I would fill it with the details required and then give to the agents to verify as they write their names and sign. I was then to sign and rubber stamp, give my deputy to sign and then make the comments at the bottom back of the form. I would then ask the deputy to assist in making other copies for the signed original. I would then give the copies to the agents to sign and retain some copies and give the rest to the agents. I also posted them on the door to the polling room….
I do not know how many form 35s that I received from the returning officer. Some of them were sealed and other were loose. There were many forms. I could not easily tell if any of them disappeared. The clerk who carried the forms also had the rubber stamp in the bag that she carried for me….
PW2 also alleged in his affidavit sworn on 9/4/13 at paragraphs 21- 24 that clerks named Moses Ongera, Nancy Ongera, Euniah Okinyi and Maureen Okinyi who were related to the 1st Respondent and who did not apply to be employed as clerks and never attended interview conducted by the 3rd respondent had been employed by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent and stationed at Nyambogo SDA primary school (064).
It is not clear why the petitioner’s counsel thought that the evidential burden had shifted to the respondents to require them, as submitted by counsel, to produce the letters applying for vacancies the date when the four attended the interview and proof whether the four had been short listed for the positions, copies of their identity cards and letters of appointment. For the evidential burden to shift, the petitioner would have to adduce firm and credible evidence as held in the Supreme Court in Raila v. IEBC, supra.
Looking at this relation, even if it is accepted to exist, the said clerks would be distant nephew- and nieces-in-law related to the 1st respondent only the 1st through their auntie who has married the 1st cousin of the 1st respondent! I do not think that it could very strongly argued that on the basis only of this distant degree of consanguinity, the said clerks could presumed to carry out their duties in a manner to favour the 1st Respondent or otherwise result in a conflict of interest between carrying out their statutory duties and any loyalty to their uncle. More importantly, no allegation is made and proved that the 1st Respondent benefitted in any way from the deployment of the said clerks at the Polling station. No matter how close the affinity or relationship of itself is not sufficient; it must be shown that it had an effect on the election, that the relative of the candidate was in a position to and did alter or otherwise influence the outcome of the election. This was not the case here.
The Petitioner’s submission is that the affidavits of PW1 and PW2 at paragraphs 42 and 25 respectively aver that Nimrod Obwocha Igenda was caught rigging and instructing voters to vote for the 1st respondent and that the 2nd respondent intervened and sacked him, and that the 2nd respondent in his affidavit at paragraph 34 admits that he relieved the clerk of his duties for the reason that the clerk was colour blind.
“25. THAT at Riegechure D.E.B Primary School (073) the clerk employed by the 3rd respondent Nimrod Obwocha Igendia was caught rigging and or instructing voters to vote for 1st respondent and was transferred and or sacked by the 2nd respondent.
It is the duty of the petitioner to prove the allegations set out in the petition and affidavits in support; the burden did not shift. It was not the duty of 2nd Respondent to seek a medical certificate of the clerk’s colour-blindness to support his defence that there was no rigging. The petitioner has not adduced evidence from any agent present at the station as to the true conduct of the polling clerk.
In the absence of such evidence, the petitioner has not proved the allegation of rigging, and the court must accept as plausible the version given by the Returning Officer that the clerk, who claimed to be colour-blind had on two occasion almost misled voters but corrected by agents, was only involved in the polling line as a clerk to show voters, who had already voted [and therefore could be influenced as to how to vote], in which of the six coloured ballot boxes to place the particular ballots. In such circumstances, I do not accept that the clerk Nimrod Obwocha was assisting in rigging the election for the 1st respondent.
It was contended for the petitioner that the 2nd and 3rd respondents together with their agents and or subordinate officers, failed in their mandate under Article 86 of the Constitution by wrongly posting the votes announced at the polling stations (Form 35) into the tallying sheet for the Constituency (known as Form 36). Consequently, the announcement of results made was incorrect in that the 2nd respondent announced results which were not reflective of the presiding officers in their respective stations.
A deponent may be ordered to attend for cross-examination on his affidavit before a judge, master or examiner of the court, and the court may refuse to act on an affidavit where the deponent cannot be cross examined; but an affidavit may be allowed to be used in court where the cross examination is pending. Where the deponent’s good faith or motive is in issue, however, the court should not be asked to act without hearing cross-examination, leave to cross-examine will not be granted until evidence by affidavit is complete. A person, whether a party to the proceedings or not, who has made and filed an affidavit cannot withdraw the affidavit when cross-examination is threatened, and a deponent can be cross-examined even where the affidavit has not been used by the party filing it.
As stated by Maraga J. (as he then was) in Joho v. Nyange (2008) 3KLR (EP) 500: “Irregularities which can be attributed to an innocent mistake or an obvious human error cannot constitute a reason for impeaching an election result. This court is mindful of the fact that at the stage where election officials are required to tally the results, some of them would have stayed awake for more than thirty-six (36) hours and therefore simple arithmetical mistakes are bound to happen.
The General Election of 2013 comprised elections to six different elective positions of the President, the County Governor, the Member of the National Assembly, the Member of the Senate, the Women Representative and County Ward Representatives, and this must be taken to have increased six-fold the probabilities of innocent human errors in computation of the figures entered as votes for the respective candidates, the talling and subsequent record thereof in the Constituency Form 36. It is not inconceivable and therefore definitely not inexcusable that the election officials who conducted the six elections over a period of three days on the 4th , 5th , and 6th March 2013 would have in human probability made errors in their record of the elections.
The transcription was exact from the form 35 to 36. No candidate was denied their rightful votes. The difference between form 36 and form 35 totals did not affect any candidate. The correct total ought to have been 63,654. The total of rejected votes together with the individual votes for all the candidates was 63,627. This total ought to have been the same as the total in column no. 2 on total votes cast.
The difference between 63627 and 63454 on the form 36 is 173 votes. The correct figure of 63654 reduced by 63627 is 27 votes. The difference of 27 votes is in the tallying of form 35 against the reflection in form 36.
At Riabore 014, Victor Sagwe Ogeto in form 35 got 23 and Victor Sagwe Ogeto in form 36 got 02, a difference of 21 votes.
The 21 votes are a loss on form 36.
At Sirate 070, the figure for rejected votes is 06 votes. The figure of 06 on form 35 is not clearly written. I was not asked to cross reference with form 36. The indicated rejected votes under the station in form 36 is 02 votes.
The votes cast is 346 votes. The total number of valid votes is 344 votes. There is no cancellation on the signing. The total votes of rejected is 02 not 06 as I had read out earlier. The totals under form 35 had 4 more votes because of using the figure of 06 votes. The form 35 tallying is 4 votes. The totals for Walter Nyambati was stated by counsel for the petitioner as 1 less. 061 Nyamwanga – form 35 indicated votes as rejected votes is 01 votes. The figure on form 36 for the station is 00. This analysis accounts for 27 votes. 23 votes under Sirate (070); Nyamwanga rejected vote 1.
Riabore 014: The figure of candidates under form 35 against the form 36. The correct score for the candidates under form 35 is 275 votes. Under form 36 the total is 252. The difference is 23 votes. There are the votes for Victor Swaya under form 35 which were not captured under form 36.
The transposition errors have therefore no effect on the eventual outcome of the election even though they do affect the results in the final figures of votes scored by the respective candidates.
“In my view in the phrase “affected the result”, the word ‘result’ means not only the result in the sense that a certain candidate won and another candidate lost. The result may be said to be affected if after making adjustments for the effect of proved irregularities the contest seems much closer than it appeared to be when first determined. But when the winning majority is so large that even a substantial reduction still leaves the successful candidate a wide margin, then it cannot be said that the result of the election would be affected by any particular non-compliance of the rules.
This was the situation in this case where the winning majority is so large that the errors shown to exist in the figures in the constituency Form 36 still leaves a wide margin of over 8000 votes between the declared winner and the runner-up.
It is clear that the addition of the 148 votes to runner-up’s declared figure of 14663 makes his final figure as 14811 and the reduction of 76 votes from the winning candidate’s declared figure of 23303 makes the final figure 23227 leaving the 1st respondent leading by 8,416 votes. While the result is affected by the reduction of the 1st Respondent winning margin figure, the final result remains that the 1st Respondent is in the lead by a wide margin of votes; the errors affect the result figures as declared but they do not change the result as regard the winning candidate.
With respect, my interpretation of the majority decision is not that the Court would ignore section 28 of the National Assembly and Presidential Act cap. 7 (now repealed by Elections Act but save for reference to the Constitution in pari materia with section 83 of the latter Act) but that unsigned statutory forms and three missing ballot boxes in that case were grave irregularities which could not be ignored. In effect, the majority of the Court (Omolo and Tunoi, JJA.) was saying that the irregularities must have affected the result.
The court also notes the powerful dissent of Githinji JA. in the decision and his application of section 28 of the former Act in finding that the irregularities in the case were not pervasive or serious enough to affect the result, holding that: .
Ultimately, the provisions of section 83 of the Elections Act 2011 require that a petitioner demonstrates that the irregularities complained of affected the outcome of the election, and I don’t find that the majority decision in Magara decision, supra, held to the contrary. I have not found here any irregularities of the nature and magnitude found by the majority in Magara.
That is the only way the court could be said to be giving effect to the will of the electors.
Errors of Transposition of figures from Form 35s to the Form 36 for constituency for three (3) polling stations; and computation error on the votes cast at one (1) polling station Rikenye DEB (001) with an error of 1 vote in the computation of the total votes cast.
The irregularities proved in sub-paragraph (a) above did not affect the result of the election. All the figures for the valid votes in the affected stations agreed with the totals of the votes cast for the candidates and there was no evidence that votes garnered by the individual candidates were affected in any way.
There was no proof of the election offences of bribery and intimidation as alleged in the Petition. These allegations were largely based on inadmissible hearsay by PW1 and PW2 who were in police custody at the time when the events allegedly took place and on evidence of PW5, PW6 and PW7 whose consistency could not be established as their oral testimony before the court was not reflected in the affidavit sworn in support the petition when their memory of the events would be expected to be fresh. On the whole, as discussed earlier in the judgment, the evidence of PW3, PW4, PW5, PW6 and PW7 was for the aforesaid reasons not credible.
The proved irregularities were not of such nature and magnitude to amount to non-compliance with the Constitution and the Elections Act, Rules and Regulations. The irregularities proved involved in the recording of the votes garnered by the candidates into the forms 35 and subsequent transposition onto Form 36 for the constituency as opposed to the process of voting and counting of the votes which was done in accordance with the Constitution and the Elections Act and witnessed by agents for the candidates. The errors in the mathematical processes leading to a few corrections and alterations mis-transpositions did not affect the constitutional requirement for accuracy because the figures were ascertainable and verifiable by the computation formulae on the relationship between the values in the statutory forms the total votes cast, the rejected votes, the valid votes cast and the total votes cast for each candidate in the election. I consider that the election complied with the principles of the Constitution and the Elections Act with regard to free and fair election and expressed the will of the electors in the Constituency.
For the reasons set out above, I find that the proved non compliance with the election law did not affect the result, the final outcome, of the election in terms of section 83 of the Elections Act, the election cannot be invalidated. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s Petition herein dated the 8th April 2013 is declined with costs to the respondents.
Court attendances for ten (10) full-day hearings at Kenya Shillings Fifty Thousand (Ksh.50,000) per day, to make a total sum of Kenya Shillings Two Million (Ksh.2M) only.
The Petitioner has succeeded in establishing that there were some irregularities in the election but which the court has held did not affect the result and did not amount to substantial noncompliance with the election law, with the overall preponderance of success going to the Respondents (see Jabane v. Olenja (1986) KLR 661). In accordance with the principle in section 84 of the Elections Act that costs shall follow the event and therefore reflect the outcome (see R. v. Nairobi B.P.R.T. & Others ex parte Karasha (1976-80) KLR 1263), I grant only 70% of the costs to the respondents. There shall, therefore, be an order for costs in favour of each of the Respondents against the Petitioner in the sum of (2,000,000 × 70/100) = Ksh.1,400,000/- (Kenya Shillings One Million Four Hundred Thousand Only).
Counsel for the 1st Respondent asked the court to report the Petitioner (PW1) and his witnesses PW2 and PW3 to the Director for Public Prosecutions (DPP) for prosecution for perjury. I consider that the provisions for reporting under section 87 (1) of the Elections Act relate only to election offences, and I therefore decline the invitation.
The Court is grateful to counsel for the parties - Mr. Jackson Omwenga for the petitioner, Mr. Lugunya with Mr. Juma for the 1st Respondent, and Mr. Ojiambo with Mr. Mukele and Mr. Mwihuri for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents – for their diligence and clarity in researching and presenting their respective briefs with aid of statutory and case law authorities, by which the Court was well served.
In accordance with Article 105 of the Constitution, this court determines and confirms that TIMOTHY MOSETI E. BOSIRE was at the General Election of 4th March 2013 validly elected as a Member of Parliament for Kitutu Masaba Constituency. Accordingly, the Certificate of the Court as to the validity of the election will, pursuant to section 86 of the Elections Act, issue to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and the Speaker of the National Assembly, forthwith.
Dated, signed and delivered this 30TH day of SEPTEMBER 2013.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.