Source: http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/95829/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:08:53+00:00

Document:
In the March 4th, 2013general elections in Kenya, Moses Masika Wetangula, (the appellant) contested for the Bungoma Senatorial seat and was declared the winner, having, according to the Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission (the IEBC), garnered 154,469 votes. His closest rival, Musikari Nazi Kombo, (the 1st respondent), who allegedly garnered 125,853 votes, being dissatisfied with that result petitioned the High Court at Bungoma to nullify the appellant’s election. After hearing the petition, Gikonyo J, nullified that election thus provoking this appeal. As the by-election arising there from had been scheduled to be held on 16th December 2013, after hearing the petition on 10th December 2013, we did not have sufficient time to prepare a full judgment. Wedismissed the appeal on 11th December 2013 but reserved our reasons for that decision. This is therefore our full Judgment on this appeal.
The appellant’s 57 grounds of appeal revolve around three main issues. One, whether or not the appellant was guilty of the election offences of bribery contrary to Section 64 of theElections Act and treating contrary to Section 62 of the same Act. Secondly, whether or not the Bungoma County Senatorial Election (the election) was conducted substantially in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution and with the written law of thatelection. And lastly, whether or not the irregularities allegedly committed in the conduct of the election affected the result of the election.
Presenting the appeal before us, Mr. Ochieng Oduol, learned counsel teaming up with Messrs Masinde, Makokha, Wasilwa and Ouma for the appellant, in both his written and oral submissions, argued that the learned Judge had no basis for finding the appellant guilty of either of the offences of bribery or treating. He cited the Supreme Court decision in Raila Odinga vs. IEBC & 3 others,the Ugandan Supreme Court decision in Colonel Dr. Kissa Besigye vs. Museveni Yoweri Kaguta,and the majority opinion of the Canadian Supreme Court in Ted Opitz v Borys Wrzeshewskyi and submitted that like in ordinary cases where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, inan election petition, the burden is on the petitioner to prove all his claims. And where the petitioner alleges commission of election offences, the burden is upon him to prove all such allegations beyond reasonable doubt. He added that as was stated in the cases of John Kiarie Waweru v Beth Wambui Mugo & 2 Others and Joho v Nyange, findings on criminal offences cannot be based on mere surmise or conjecture but on accurate, succinct and credible evidence.
In this case, the 1st respondent had made numerous allegations of bribery and treating against the appellant but the court dismissed them for lack of sufficient evidence save for the one allegedly committed on 22nd February, 2013 at the Red Cross meeting at Kanduyi (the Red Cross meeting) which it held had been proved to the required standard. Counsel submitted that although the learned Judge had correctly stated the standard of proof of criminal offences committed in the process of an election and set out the ingredients of the offences of bribery and treating, he erred in finding that the allegations made against the appellant that he had bribed and treated the Pastors and Bishops at the Red Cross meeting had been proved to the required standard.
Counsel submitted that as the 1st respondent conceded that he did not himself witness any incident of bribery and treating, he relied on the evidence of Rev. Joseph Machani Wekesa, PW4, Bishop Judith Nanjala Wechuli, PW6 and Nehemiah Mkubwa Kinisu, PW7. He said the evidence of those witnesses was totally unreliable as it was riddled with “incurable contradictions.”He argued that whereas PW4, who had perjured himself, claimed that the appellant contributed Kshs. 140,000/= and Hon. Khangati Kshs. 120,000/= as transport for the Pastors and Bishops who attended the Red Cross meeting, PW6 and PW7 said it was the appellant who gave the whole sum of Kshs. 260,000/=. Again while PW6 said the appellant gave that money to Bishop Khaoya, as a token of appreciation for their anticipated support, PW7 claimed that the appellant gave the money to Pastor Musundi and Bishop Macheusi to distribute amongPastors. In the circumstances, instead of demanding for evidence as to who gave what sum of money to who and for what purpose, the learned Judge ignored the evidence of the appellant and his witnesses and erred in concluding that these witnesses gave a succinct account of the appellant and Hon. Khangati bribing and treating Pastors and Bishops with Kshs. 260,000/= to mobilize votes for the appellant and other CORD Coalition candidates.If anything, counsel submitted, there was evidence that it was the 1st respondent who bribed one Maurice Makhanu and his wife with Kshs 5000/= each to induce Makhanu to use his network to solicit votes for him which evidence the learned Judgesurprisingly dismissed holding that that claim was not proved to the required standard.
Citing the Nigerian Court of Appeal decision in Dr. John Olukayode Fayeni vs. Olusegun Adebayo Oni & Others,counsel for the appellant contended that an election can only be annulled on allegations of bribery if there is proof that the offence was not only widespread but also that it had substantially influenced the outcome of an election. In this case, the learned Judge found as proved only one incident of bribing about 200 Pastors and Bishops but there was no evidence of what effectthat incident had on the more than 400,000 registered voters in Bungoma County.
Turning to the issue of non-compliance with the Constitution and the law on elections, Mr. Oduol referred us to the common law maxim, Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniterasseacta( all acts are presumed to be done rightly and regularly)and submitted that the onus is upon the one who alleges to prove the impropriety of any public body in the performance of its duties to a degree higher than that of balance of probabilities but not to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Besides proof of impropriety or irregularity, as required by Section 83 of the Elections Act, the person making such an allegationmust also go further and demonstrate that the allegedimpropriety or irregularity actually affected the result of the election. Counsel once again relied on the authority of Raila Odinga vs. IEBC & 3 Others, and the cases of John vs. Nyange and Munyao vs. Munuve & 4 Others in support of that submission.
Counsel forcefully argued that as the Canadian Supreme Court recognized in Ted Opitz vs. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, (supra) irregularities in one form or another are bound to occur in virtually all elections. But in annulling an election and thereby disenfranchising the people, the court should be clear in its determination that the non-conformity with the election law or,adopting the “magic number” test, any regulation thereof actually affected the result of the election.
Counsel submitted that in the above Canadian case, an election with a margin of only 6 votes was sustained. In this case, counsel submitted, the 2nd and 3rdrespondents rebutted, by documentary evidence, all the egregious allegations of breaches of the Constitution, the Elections Act and Elections (General) Regulations, 2012 (the Election Regulations) and demonstrated that even with the concession of an arithmetic error which reduced the magic number from 32,616 to 17,839 votes, the irregularities committed in the election did not, in the circumstances, affect the result of the election. Counsel was particularly emphatic that the erasures and alterations on Forms 35 were not on the number of votes garnered by each candidate but on other inconsequential details. Moreover, he said, the learned Judge did not determine, with specificity the multiple and widespread anomalies that he claimed tinctured the election.
Finally, counsel for the appellant took issue with what he called the Superior Court’s illegal delegation of its duty of conducting an inquiry to the Deputy Registrar and reliance on the Deputy Registrar’s report on that inquiry. Although,the inquiry and scrutiny were triggered by the evidence of George Sitati, PW5, who testified that there was double registration and double voting by about 40 people, in his affidavit, that witness claimed that only one voter, Christine Nekesa Weswa, had registered twice and voted twice. Without any additional affidavit and thus contrary to rules of amendment of pleadings, PW5 was allowed to produce a list of 40 people he claimed registered twice and voted twice. And this,despite the evidence adduced by the 2nd and 3rdrespondents that before the elections, the IEBC had cleaned up the voters register and barred from voting people who had registered twice and the people who were alleged to have been involved in double registration themselves appeared before the Deputy Registrar and asserted that they each registered and voted once.
In conclusion, counsel for the appellant urged us to find that the Bungoma County Senatorial Election substantially complied with the Constitution, the Elections Act and the Election Regulations and that even if there were irregularities, they did not affect the result of the election. He therefore urged us to allow this appeal.
Mr. Gumbo, learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rdrespondents, supported the appeal and adopted the submissions by counsel for the appellant as summarized above. On the offences of bribery andtreating he added that the learned Judge ignored the contradictions in the evidence tendered for the 1st respondent. For instance, at one time PW6 said the appellant gave each of the 200 pastors Kshs.2000/= as a token of appreciation but later she said theappellant gave the money to Bishop Khahoya as transport for Bishops andPastors to share on their way home. PW7 on his part said the money was given to Rev. Musundi and Bishop Macheusi. Despite those contradictions, the learned Judge believed the evidence of these witnesses but did not say why he disbelieved that of Bishop Macheusi who categorically denied receiving or seeing any money change hands.
Counsel urged us to dismiss the Deputy Registrar’s report on inquiry and scrutiny for three reasons. One, that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry and/or the scrutiny. This is because Article 105 of the Constitutionvests the jurisdiction to determine senatorial election petitions upon the High Court. Secondly, that although, theinquiry was intended to determine if any criminal offences had been committed in the election, it was extended to issues like double registration and double voting thus amending the petition out of time contrary to Article 87(2)of the Constitution.And lastly that the report condemned the respondents unheard thus showing open bias against them. He cited the cases of Kwamba Saleh Moses vs. Namuyangu Jeniffer and WavinyaNdeti vs. IEBC & 4 Others in support of thislast submission.
On malpractices and irregularities, Mr. Gumbo submitted that the petition made general allegations without specifying which election law was flouted. Although he conceded that there were some irregularities, he said those were minor trans-positional and arithmetic errors that did not affect the result of the election. As regards Forms 35, he submitted that the IEBC staff did not have photocopying facilities at polling stations. In completing the required copies of the same form therefore, minor discrepancies were bound to and did occur which the candidates’ agents ignored as immaterial and signed those forms. In relying on these minor irregularities, he submitted that the learned Judge did not appreciate the import of Section 83 of the Elections Act. He also urged us to allow this appeal with costs.
Counsel further submitted that the 1st respondent adduced credible evidence to prove that contrary to Section 4 of the Elections Act, there were more than one principal registers in Bungoma County; that contrary to Sections 57, 58 and 59 of the Elections Act, there was double registration of voters;that the 2nd and 3rd respondents permitted people who had not registered to vote and others to vote twice; and that besides numerous alterations which were not counter signed for and errors, many Forms 35 did not have statutory statements and were not signed by the Presiding Officers and/or the candidates’ agents as required. Counsel said the learned Judge was therefore justified in finding that those multiple malpractices, together with the commission by the appellant of the offences of bribery and treating affected the integrity and validity of the election. That coupled with the 2nd and 3rd respondent’s failure to produce Forms 36 as ordered by the court and the announcement of results with admitted arithmetical errors, there is no guarantee that the final results announced were accurate. Those irregularities therefore also affected the results.
Counsel for the 1st respondent dismissed as unfounded the appellant’s contention that the order of inquiry and scrutiny unlawfully widened the scope of the petition. He submitted that the 1st respondent had pleaded and applied for scrutiny and following the evidence of George Sitati, PW12, that the election was riddled with many instances of double registration and double voting, the learned Judge was justified to order, suo moto, the verification of those claims. He also dismissed as having no basis the contention that the appellant and the 2nd and 3rd respondents were condemned unheard. Those parties did not oppose the order of scrutiny. Instead they fully participated in the exercise. They cannot therefore be heard to challenge the basis of its results.
On the commission of election offences, Mr. Ndambiri submitted that the appellant gave the Bishops and Pastors at the Red Cross meeting Kshs. 260,000/= with the clear objective of having them influence and mobilize votes for him and other CORD Coalition candidates. He cited the case of Muliro vs. Mubonye & Another and urged us to find that it is enough if there is evidence that bribes were given with the intention of influencing votes for a particular candidate and that as stated in Paragraph 113 of Halsbury’s Laws of England Volume 15, one proved incident of bribery suffices to void an election.
On those grounds, counsel for the 1st respondent urged us to dismiss this appeal with costs.
Having considered these rival submissions and carefully read the record of appeal, as we have stated, we find that the 57 grounds of appeal can be consolidated and considered under three major clusters, namely,the alleged non-conformity with electoral law,the commission of electoral offences and whether or not the irregularities that were admittedly committed in the election affected the result of the election.
In the first cluster, we shall consider the electoral law that governed the 4thMarch, 2013 general elections in Kenya and the provisions of that law that were allegedly violated. In the second cluster we shall consider whether or not the allegations of commission of electoral offences were proved and if so whether they impacted on the validity and integrity of the elections. In the third cluster, we shall consider if the irregularities and/or malpractices that were allegedly committed in the election affected the results of the election. We shall not necessarily pigeon hole our discussions on these clusters. There may be occasions when we may vacillate between these clusters.
These International Conventions, having been ratified by Kenya,are by dint of Article 2(6) of the Kenya Constitution 2010, part of the law of Kenya.
(v) administered in an impartial, neutral, efficient, accurate and accountable manner.
the votes cast are counted, tabulated and the results announced promptly by the presiding officer at each polling station.
To effectuate these constitutional requirements, Parts II, III, IV, V and VI of the Elections Act as well as the Election Regulations have elaborate provisions covering the entire electoral spectrum from voter registration, qualification and nomination of candidates, the conduct of elections and what acts amount to election offences the commission of which has dire consequences.
It is settled law that any election that is not conducted substantially in accordance with the electoral law of that election is null and void. We have this on the authority of the Kenyan Supreme Court decision in Raila vs. IEBC & Others (supra) in which it was also held that to void an election, the petitioner must prove that the non-compliance with the election law impugned the integrity of that election.
This principle was also reiterated by the Ugandan Court of Appeal in the case of Kakooza John Baptist v. Electoral Commission & Another.
Locally the principle has been applied in the cases of Joho v Nyange (supra); John Kiarie Waweru v Beth Wambui Mugo (supra) and Munyao v Munuve & 4 Others to cite but a few.
31. Having set out general principles and the electoral law in Kenya, we now wish to turn to the issues that arisefor our determination in this appeal. As stated above,the issuesare broadly whether or not the impugned election was conducted in accordance with the above stated electoral law or whether or not non-conformity thereof affected the result of the election. In this regard, we wish, once again, to call attention to the wording of Section 83 of the Elections Act. The term used in the demarcation of the two aspects of the governing principlesin that provision is “or” not “and” which means that violation of either, and not both, of the two aspects of that provision will void an election.
32. We have already cited authorities to the effect that to meet the legal threshold, any election has to be conducted “substantially” in accordance with the electoral law of that election. Why “substantially” and not strictly in accordance with the electoral law of that election?
33. It is an accepted fact that no human activity can be perfect. The conduct of an election is therefore no exception. That notwithstanding, however, for an election to be valid, substantial compliance with the law governing that election is mandatory. For instance no election can be valid if it is not based on the principle of universal suffrage; if it is not by secret ballot; if it is not transparent and free from violence, intimidation, improper influence or corruption; and if it is not conducted by an independent body and administered in an impartial, neutral, efficient, accurate and accountable manner. No election can be valid if, whatever method of voting is employed,it is not “simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent”; as well asif “appropriate structures and mechanisms to eliminate electoral malpractice are [not] put in place”; and the counting and collation of votes and announcement of the results are not open and accurate. What Section 83 of the Elections Act excuses are minor infractions of these principles or requirements that arise from inadvertent, not deliberate or negligent, human activities in the effectuation of these principles but do not affect the result of the election.
34. With regard to the first aspect of non-compliance with the electoral law governing the election in this matter, the 1st respondent’s complaint was the allegation that the appellant committed the election offences of treating and bribery. The clear implication from that allegation is that the appellant, in violation of Article 81(e)(ii) of the Constitution, got himself elected as Senator of Bungoma County by “improper influence and or corruption”. In this regard, what we are called upon to determine therefore is whether or not the appellant committed either or both of those offences and the effect that commission had on his election as Senator of Bungoma County.
35. In his petition, the 1st respondent made several allegations of bribery against the appellant. These included the allegation that on 3rd March 2013, the appellant’s agents convened a political meeting disguised as a farmers’ meeting at the home of the late Francis Saranduki, at which each attendee was given Kshs.100/= to vote for the appellant. After considering the evidence adduced on that allegation, the learned Judge, correctly in our view, dismissed it.
36. The 1st respondent also made allegations of bribery by the appellant himself. He alleged that at a meeting of Bishops and Pastors held at Nzioa Guest House on 5th February 2013, attended by Hon. Eseli Simiyu and Hon. Bifwoli, the appellant gave a bribe of Kshs.2000/=, which he termed as a token of appreciation, to each of the 21 Bishops and Pastors who were in attendance. At another meeting held at St. Peters Pastoral Centre at Kabula on 18th February 2013, the appellant again allegedly bribed each of the 300 participants with Kshs.500/=. The learned Judge also dismissed these claims of bribery for lack of credible evidence.
37. The learned Judge, however, found that there was sufficient and credible evidence to prove the allegation that the appellant gave Kshs.260,000/= to the Bishops and Pastors who attended a meeting at Red Cross Kanduyi on 22nd February 2013 and accordingly held the appellant guilty of the offences of bribery and treating.
(j) directly or indirectly, in person or by any person on his behalf, in order to induce any other person to agree to be nominated as a candidate or to refrain from becoming a candidate or to withdraw if they have become candidates, gives or procures any office, place or employment to endeavour to procure any office, place or employment, to or for such other person, or gives or lends or agrees to give or lend, or offers or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure any money or valuable consideration to or for any person or to or for such other person on behalf of such other or to or for any person, commits the offence of bribery.
39. Section 107 of the Evidence Act legislates the obvious principle that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving his allegation. In election petitions, it is the petitioner who, on one or more grounds, seeks the nullification of an election. The burden is therefore, upon the petitioner to prove his allegations; and the standard of proof in election petitions is generally to the satisfaction of the court, higher than on a balance of probabilities but not to the level of beyond reasonable doubt. See Raila Odinga Vs IEBC & Others and Joho v Nyange (supra).
40. However, if there are allegations of commission of election offences in an election, the law requires that those allegations be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the standard of proof required in allegations of commission of election offences made in election petitions is beyond reasonable doubt. Once again see Raila Odinga Vs IEBC & Others and Joho v Nyange (supra).
41. There is good reason for this requirement. Election offences are criminal offences. For anyone to be held criminally liable, Article 50(2)(a) of the Constitution requires that the case against such person should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In election petitions, the law requires the election court to report such person to the IEBC, which may bar such person from contesting in that or future elections.This is besides the sentence that may be meted out to such person if criminal charges are brought against him. It is on account of these dire consequences that the law demands proof beyond reasonable doubt of allegations of commission of election offences.
42. In this case, as we have stated, the learned Judge found the appellant guilty of the offences of bribery and treating. Were those offences proved against him beyond reasonable doubt? Section 85A of the Elections Act permits appeals from the High Court to this Court only on points of law. Whether or not the appellant committed election offences of bribery and/or treating is a point of law. To determine that issue, we have no option but to examine and re-evaluate the evidence on it and that does not in any way foul the provisions of that section. This is because when an appeal is only on a point of law like identification in criminal cases, the appellate court has to examine evidence adduced in such a case to determine the point of law raised.
43. In this case the evidence of the bribery claim came from Rev. Joseph Machani Wekesa, PW4, Bishop Judith Wanjala Wechuli, PW6 and Nehemiah Mkubwa Kinisu, PW7. Rev. Joseph Machani Wekesa, PW4, allegedly swore two affidavits. In the first one sworn on 8th April, 2013 he claimed that on 22nd February, 2013 he attended a meeting of Pastors and Bishops from the entire Bungoma County at Red Cross Bungoma Branch headquarters at Kanduyi which had been convened by the appellant with the assistance of Hon. Khangati and Hon. Wamunyinyi. He testified that the main agenda of that meeting was to get the church leaders to mobilize their colleagues and followers to vote for the appellant and other candidates of the CORD family. He claimed that at that meeting, the appellant and Hon. Khangati contributed Kshs.260,000/= as a token for transport for Bishops and Pastors to share as they left for their homes. Each church leader got Kshs.1000/=.In the second affidavit sworn on 18th April, 2013he disowned the first affidavit and averred that he attended the Red Cross meeting and that neither the appellant nor Hon. Khangati gave any money to the Bishops and Pastors in that meeting.
44. Basing his evidence in court on the first affidavit, as stated PW4 disowned the second affidavit and testified that on 20thApril 2013, four people went to his home at about 9.00 pm, beat him up and forced him to thumb print a document after which they took his ID card and left. He later learnt from counsel for the 1st respondent that the document he was forced to thumb print was an affidavit. He said he thumb printed it to save his life. He reiterated the averments in his first affidavit that the appellant contributed Kshs. 160,000/= and Hon. Khangati Kshs. 140,000/= at the Red Cross meeting all of which was shared out among the people in that meeting. Although, he did not report that bribery to police, he reported his assault and loss of his ID card to his chief and the police.
45. In her affidavit sworn on 8th April 2013, PW6 stated that at the Red Cross meeting the appellant produced Kshs. 260,000/= placed it on the table after which the appellant and Hon. Khangati counted it and handed it to Bishop Francis Khaoya to share it among the Bishops and Pastors to mobilize votes for the appellant and other CORD Coalition candidates. In court she stuck to that statement and denied taking a share of that amount as she is a bishop. She claimed she did not report the bribery to police because she feared for her life.
46. Nehemiah Mkubwa Kinisu, PW7, is neither a Pastor nor a Bishop. He testified that he attended the Red Cross meeting in his capacity as a domestic observer on behalf of Mwatikho National Rehabilitation Centre and a member of the Red Cross Bungoma Branch. At that meeting, according to him, the appellant handed Kshs. 260,000/= over to pastor Musundi and Bishop Macheusi to distribute among the church leaders at that meeting to mobilize their followers to vote for the appellant. He did not take a share of that money as it was meant for Pastors and Bishops and he was neither of those.Although he did not report that bribery claim to police, on 4th March 2013 he rang the Bungoma OCPD and reported a different bribing incident he had witnessed at Mupeli Primary School Polling Station. The OCPD went there immediately and chased away the people who were giving bribes and arrested one of them by the name Makwala.
47. Against this evidence is that of the appellant and his witness, Bishop Julius Wafula Macheusi. In his testimony, although he admitted passing by the Red Cross meeting at which he found the appellant, Hon. Khangati and Hon. Wamunyinyi who were allowed to address it, the appellant vehemently denied giving any money or seeing any money change hands at that meeting. He also denied allegations of bribery at other meetings. He testified that he went to the Red Cross meeting at about 10.30am and found Hon. Khangati and his wife as well as Hon. Wamunyinyi there. According to him that was a normal Bishop’s consultative meeting and the appellant went there to seek the clergymen’s blessings in his campaign.
48. Having carefully re-evaluated this evidence, we are satisfied that the appellant gave Kshs. 260,000/= to the Pastors and Bishops who were assembled at the Red Cross offices at Kanduyi on 22nd February 2013. As we have stated, the appellant conceded that he attended that meeting. The 1st respondent’s witnesses, PW4, PW6 and PW7 as well as the appellant himself and his witness Bishop Macheusi, testified that Hon. Khangati and Hon. Wamunyinyi also attended that meeting.
49. True there were some contradictions in the evidence tendered by the 1st respondent’s witnesses. For instance while PW6 said the appellant gave the Kshs. 260,000/= to Bishop Francis Khaoya to distribute among the Pastors and Bishops who attended that meeting, PW7 said the appellant gave the money to Pastor Musundi and Bishop Macheusi. On his part PW4 said the sum of Kshs. 260,000/= was contributed by the appellant and Hon. Khangati with the former giving Kshs.160,000 and the latter Kshs.140,000/=. In our view these are minor contradictions which are bound to arise in the testimony of more than one witness giving an account of an incident they witnessed. We daily read of numerous newspaper accounts which differ in minor details but in principal carry the same story.
50. Despite the fact that those witnesses did not report that incident to the police, we nonetheless believe their evidence. PW4 said he was forced to thumbprint the second affidavit. That affidavit has a thumbprint and a signature. Why would a literate person thumbprint and sign a document? We believe his evidence. PW6 said that is because she feared for her life. Given the beating PW4 suffered, the others must have also had the same fears. PW7 said he reported the matter to his head office. These two witnesses did not take a share of the bribe. PW6 said as a bishop, her conscience could not allow her to take a bribe. PW7 said the money was meant for pastors and Bishops and he was therefore not given a share of it as he was neither of those. The appellant was identified as the donor or one of the donors of the Kshs. 260,000/=. The recipients were the Pastors and Bishops at the Red Cross meeting and the purpose of the money was for them to mobilize their colleagues and followers to vote for the appellant and other CORD Coalition candidates. That, in our view, satisfied the ingredients of the two offences of treating and bribery and we therefore find that those offences were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
51. Section 87(1) of the Elections Act requires election courts to report to the Director of Prosecutions (DPP), the IEBC and the relevant Speaker candidates they adjudicate guilty of election offences. We do not therefore, agree with the learned Judge that the petition before him having not been a criminal trial the appellant was not given sufficient notice of the offences he was alleged to have committed hence his failure to report him as required.
52. Where commission of any election offence is alleged against any respondent in an election petition, that, in our view, is sufficient notice to such respondent that the petitioner intends to prove criminal charges against him. Such respondent is put on notice that upon sufficient evidence being adduced against him of commission of an election offence, he is obliged, without assuming the burden of proving himself innocent, to rebut such evidence. All that the petition court is required to do is to afford such respondent a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. So when, after considering all the evidence on record including any evidence adduced by the respondent, an election court finds that an election offence has been proved to the required standard against a respondent who has been afforded an opportunity to defend himself or herself, the trial court does not have to wait until such a respondent is proved guilty in a separate criminal trial. The reporting requirementwas not put in the Elections Act as a mere ornamental or lofty aspirational provision.It is supposed to be enforced and implemented. It is supposed to and should bite. The petition court should therefore boldly go ahead and report such respondent and upon receipt of such report, the IEBC is, under Section 72(3)(b) of the Elections Act, obliged to disqualify such candidate from contesting the next election.That is the only way we can tame such vices in our electoral system.By the time the criminal case is mounted and proved against such a respondent, the election court would have closed shop and become functus officio and Section 87(1), with the consequences spelt out in Section 72(3)(b), will have been rendered otiose thus encouraging impunity leading to the disaffection among the voters with catastrophic consequences as happened in our country after the 2007 general election.
53. Part VI of the Election Act creates several election offences and provides a sentence for each offence. In our view, the reporting requirement is intended to ensure that the court decision is enforced. The reporting to the DPP of a candidate who has committed an election offence is intended to cause the DPP to institute criminal charges, if he has not yet done so, against such candidate and if such candidate is proved guilty, he should be punished in accordance with the relevant section of the Election Act criminalizing his act or omission. As we have stated, that is over and above the disqualification, under Section 72 (3)(b), of such candidate from participating in the following election.The report to the IEBC is for it to comply with that section and bar the candidate from participating in the following election. The report to the Speakeris to doubly ensure that such person does not sneak back into his House without first being absolved of the criminal offence(s).
54. Although we have found that the appellant was properly adjudicated guilty of the election offences of treating and bribery, we cannot ourselves report him to the authorities for the simple reason that there was no cross-appeal and the issue of reporting the appellant was therefore not canvassed before us. The 1strespondent bungled in his attempt to cross-appeal and raise that point forcing us to dismiss his application to that end.
55. Having upheld the learned Judge’s finding of the appellant guilty of election offences, the issue that immediately springs up to mind is the effect of that determination. Unlike the English Representation Act 1983 which automatically voids the election of any person found to have committed an election offence of corruption or illegal practice, our Elections Act does not have any such specific provision. Section 80(4) of the Elections Act forbids the election courtfrom declaring as a winner any person found to have committed an election offence but that is only upon scrutiny and recount of votes.However, under Articles 105 and 140 of the Constitution, anyone can challenge the validity of the election of a Member of Parliament or the President. Under Section 75(2) of the Elections Act, an election can be challenged on, inter alia, “the ground of a corrupt practice, and specifically alleging any payment of money or other act ….”We understand “other act” here to mean any other illegal act or practice. The Act does not define the phrase “corrupt practice” but it defines the phrase “illegal practice” as “an offence specified in Part VI” of the Act.
56. Our conclusion from these provisions is that proof of commission of any election offence vitiates an election.
57.In this case there was only one incident of corruption proved against the appellant. The question then is: Is such determination per se sufficient to void an election? In other words, does a single incident of bribery and/or treating suffice to annul an election? This is the issue we now wish to address before we move on to consider the alleged irregularities in the election giving rise to this appeal.
58. Article 260 of the Constitution defines a “State Officer” as “a person holding a ‘State office’” and a “State office” as including the office or position of a “Member of Parliament.” Needless to add that as provided by Article 93(1) Parliament consists of the National Assembly and the Senate. Article 10 has integrity as one of the core national values and principles of good governance and Chapter Six of the Constitution requires State Officers to be persons of integrity.
59. The term “integrity” comes from a congruence between thoughts, feelings, words, and actions when all that you are and do spring from your core values. The English Dictionary defines the term “integrity” as honesty and moral uprightness. In his book: Developing the Leaders Around You, John C. Maxwell defines “integrity” as the trustworthiness and solid character at consistent words and walk. True leaders demonstrate integrity by example. Men and women of integrity are those whose word can be depended upon in any situation. Trust and confidence are the foundations of every business relationship they engage in. Mahatma Gandhi was one of the greatest examples of integrity we have seen in modern times, and the many moving stories about his life demonstrate the power of teaching this character trait by example.
60. The opposite of integrity is corruption. Sections 62 and 64 of the Elections Act quoted above include the term “corruption” in the acts that constitute the election offences of bribery and treating. Corruption is defined the act of “dishonesty in return for money or personal gain.”A person who bribes for anything cannot, by any stretch of imagination, therefore be said to be a person of integrity.
61. In election law, when determining the effect of commission of an election offence, a distinction should be drawn between corruption acts committed by agents of a candidate and those committed by the candidate himself. This is because, save where they are shown to have been express which is quite rare, the corrupt acts of an agent have to be shown to have had the implied sanction or blessing of the candidate involved. To prove that nexus, there should be evidence of several corrupt acts of the agent or agents of the candidate which would establish a consistent pattern from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the candidate concerned must have sanctioned or condoned those acts. In the case of corruption by an agent, care should also be taken to ensure that one is not an agent provocateur i.e. an “agent” planted by the opponent.
63. In the circumstances, having found that the appellant was correctly adjudicated guilty of commission of offences of bribery and treating, we reject his counsel’s contention, based on the Nigerian Court of Appeal decision in Dr.John Olukayode Fayeni vs. Olusegun Adebayo Oni & Others, that one requires several acts of bribery or evidence and that the bribery or corruption alleged in an election petition should be shown to have actually influenced a substantial proportion of voters to vote the way they did or substantially affected the outcome of the election in order to void an election. As a matter of fact, there was no allegation of bribery in that case. the electoral offences allegedly committed in that case were violence, hijack of voting materials, multiple thumb printing, ballot snatching and stuffing of ballot boxes, and falsification. So that authority is clearly inapplicable in this case.
For the reasons stated above, we would, on our part, limit the invalidation of an election on proof of commission of only one act of corruption to the act of a candidate himself because such an act impeaches the integrity of that candidate.
65. We also endorse the statement in Muliro v. Musonye & Another, where it was held that it is not necessary to prove the amount of bribery. “It should suffice if it is shown that with [the] intention to influence voters to vote for a given candidate, bribes were given to voters.”It follows therefore that we must dismiss this appeal on the one incident of bribery and treating committed by the appellant himself at the Red Cross meeting at Kanduyi on 22nd February, 2013.
66. We now turn to the issue of irregularities in the conduct of the Bungoma Senatorial election on 4th March 2013.
67. In his petition, the 1st respondent made claims of double registration and double voting; “voting by dead voters”; denial of the right to vote; acts of violence; and multiplicity and erroneous entries as well as omissions on Forms 35 and 36.
68. With regard to double registration and double voting, the 1st respondent called George Sitati Wekesa, PW2, who testified that in September, 2012, he was a member of the appellant’s steering committee which was charged with the responsibility of devising general strategies and structures that had to be employed in ensuring that the appellant won the Bungoma Senatorial seat. One of the strategies the committee allegedly devised was to ensure that as many people as possible were registered to vote. In this regard, he claimed that the appellant instructed the committee to have as many people as possible register and vote more than once assuring them that nothing would happen to them or to such voters. He further claimed that the appellant advised them how to cheat the computer in the double registration process: by interchanging the names of a voter and omitting from and/or adding a digit to the voter’s identity card number. The witness named one Christine Wekesa Weswa as one of the forty people he claimed he knew who registered twice and voted twice. He also produced several voters’ cards of people he claimed had registered more than once.
69. On the basis of that evidence, the learned Judge directed his Deputy Registrar to carry out an inquiry to verify those claims of double registration and double voting.We would like, at this stage, to dispose of the issue raised by counsel for the appellant and the 2nd and 3rd respondents on the Deputy Registrar’s jurisdiction to carry out an inquiry to verify those claims.
70. As we have pointed out, counsel for the appellant and the 2nd and 3rd respondents took issue with the learned Judge’s direction to the Deputy Registrar to carry out the inquiry contending that the inquiry was null and void as a Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to handle any aspect of an election petition supposed to be heard by the High Court. Having considered the issue, we hold that there is nothing wrong with the election court directing the Deputy Registrar or any officer of the court to carry out an inquiry, scrutiny or recount. As long as that is carried out in the presence of the parties’ representatives and in accordance with the directions and under the superintendence of the election court, such an exercise is as good as one carried out by the election court itself. After all, one cannot expect a judge to recount the votes himself. That will take a long time and probably impinge on the timelines set in the Constitution for the disposal of election petitions. While such an exercise is being carried out, the Judge can go on with the rest of the hearing thus expediting the hearing. We therefore find no merit in this contention.
71. After conducting the inquiry, the Deputy Registrar prepared a report which the learned Judge reproduced verbatim in his judgment. The report shows that, other than the said Christine Wekesa Weswa, who surprisingly and audaciously confirmed that she registered twice and voted twice, and one Peter Wanimo Beli who said he was by mistake registered twice butpointed that out to the IEBC officials and voted once, all the other people who appeared before the Deputy Registrar denied double registration or double voting.The scrutiny, however, revealed that an insignificant number of people voted twice and others who were not supposed to vote because of double registration voted.
72. The report also revealed that in quite a number of polling stations, there were more than one Forms 35 and some of them had erroneous entries relating to the number of registered voters and voter turnout; others had cancellations and alterations on those figures that were not countersigned; others were not signed by agents; others did not have the presiding officers’ statutory comments; and some had other mistakes.
73. On collation, which is the same thing as tallying, the report indicated that despite the express order of the Judge dated 3rd May, 2013 directing the IEBC to supply to the 1st respondent with copies of both Forms 35 and 36 used in Bungoma County, the IEBC failed to supply copies of Forms 36. The copies of that form which the parties had exhibited were multiple and in some cases contained erroneous results.In some constituencies like Webuye–East and Tongaren, the learned Judge doubted if any tallying was ever done at all.
74. Taking into account all these irregularities and the 2nd and 3rd respondents’ admission that the votes cast for the 1st respondent had been understated by 14,777, the learned Judge reached the conclusion that the cumulative effect of those irregularities fundamentally dented and impeached the integrity of the Bungoma Senatorial election and that the final result announced could not be relied upon.
75. We have already cited and reproduced verbatim herein above the provisions of Section 83 of the Elections Act which are to the effect that no election can be voided for non-compliance with any written law relating to that election unless it is demonstrated, inter alia, that the non-compliance affected the result of that election. What is meant by “the result of the election”?
76. Section 2 of the Elections Act defines “election results” as “the declared out come of the casting of votes by voters at an election.” This, and as was stated in the said Ugandan case of Colonel Dr. Kissa Besigye vs. Museveni Yoweri Kaguta,and the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya in Hassan Ali Joho & Another v. Suleiman Said Shahbal & Others, SC Petition No. 10 of 2013, refers to the quantitative or numerical result of an election. It is, however, trite that the result of an election is not limited to only the numerical or quantitative result. Section 83 of the Elections Act requires the validity of the result of an election to be gauged upon both quantitative and qualitative tests.
77. The quantitative test relates to the figures of the votes garnered by the candidates in that election with the one having a simple majority being declared the winner, our system being first-past-the post. So if the irregularities determined reverse the numerical victory of the winner, that affects the result of an election.
78. The qualitative test, on the other hand, relates to the integrity of the conduct of an election, the criterion being whether or not the process can be said to have resulted in a free, fair and transparent election.
Needless to say that the irregularities which prevent an election from being “a true election” cast doubt on the integrity of such an election. Another good example of a qualitative irregularity that can void an election is failure by the presiding officer to sign Form 35. This is the form on which the votes garnered by each candidate in any polling station are recorded. In other words they are the forms which have the results of an election. As was stated by this Court in James Omingo Magara v. Manson Nyamweya & 2 Others, doubt will be cast on the authenticity of that form, by the failure of the presiding officer to either to sign it or to countersign against any cancellation on the votes garnered by each or all the candidates. When a document is not signed by its author, it means that the author does not own it. It follows therefore that a presiding officer who does not sign Form 35does not own such form. Doubt is cast on the authenticity of such a form and the same cannot be relied upon and that affects the result of the election it relates to. If the exclusion of the votes on such form would affect the magic number or make it indeterminate, the result of such an election are also affected.
80. There are a number of cases where elections have been voided on the ground of qualitative irregularities committed in the conduct of elections. For instance in Manson Nyamweya v. James Omingo Magara & Others, a decision upheld by this Court, and William Kabogo Gitau v. George Thuo,the elections were voided, inter alia, on the ground of failure by some presiding officers to sign Form 16A which had the results of some of the polling stations in those elections.In both cases, it was held, quite correctly in our view, that failure by the presiding officer to sign Form 16A (Form 35 in the current Elections Act) which had the result impeached the authenticity of the results of that polling station. In William Kabogo Gitau v. George Thuo, in addition to failure by eight presiding officers to sign Form 16A, (currently Form 35) that form was missing in respect to some polling stations thus making it difficult to rely on the results announced.
81. In this case, as we have pointed out, the irregularities found to have been committed in the conduct of elections were double registration and double voting but that was in respect of only one clear case of Chritine Wekesa Weswa. The quantitative error on Forms 35,which had the result of the votes garnered by each candidate, related to only one instance, at Kipsis Primary School (004), in respect of which the appellant’s votes were stated as 165 while Form 36 gave him only 65. With the accepted margin of 17,839 votes in this case, even if all the votes in that station were given to the 1st respondent, they would not affect the overall victory of the appellant. There was no dispute on any of the others Forms 35 on the actual votes garnered by each candidate. The dispute with regard to the votes cast for each candidate, which, as we have pointed out,had reduced the 1st respondent’s votes by 14,777 was an arithmetic error on the collation of the votes on Forms 36 and not on the actual votes garnered by each candidate. Even with the correction of that error, the appellant still had a majority of 17,839. In the circumstances, we find that the irregularities committed in the Bungoma Senatorial election did not affect the numerical result of the election.
82. The alleged qualitative irregularities committed were: having more than one Forms 35 in some polling stations; erroneous entries relating the number of registered voters and voter turnout on some of them; others had cancellations and alterations on those figures that were not countersigned; others were not signed by agents; others did not have the presiding officers’ statutory comments; and some had other mistakes. We should here point out that as Mr. Gumbo for the 2nd and 3rd respondents said, IEBC did not have photocopying facilities in polling stations. As the presiding officers were required to give copies of Form 35 to each candidate’s agent, post one on the wall of the polling station and give one to the Returning Officer for collation, it meant that each presiding officer had to complete by hand several copies of that form. In such situation errors are bound to have occurred. On their own, the anomalies alleged in this election, in our respective view, cannot be said to have rendered the Bungoma Senatorial election a sham. In other words the qualitative irregularities committed in the election in this case also did not “prevent the election [from] being a true election” or one which was not “an election really and in substance conducted under the existing law.” The ground of irregularities affecting the result of the Bungoma Senatorial election therefore fails.
83. In the upshot, for the above stated reasons, we find that both the qualitative and quantitative irregularities committed by the IEBC’s officials in the conduct of the Bungoma Senatorial election did not affect the integrity or result of the elections. However, as we have found, the commission by the appellant of the election offences of bribery and treating, amounted to conducting the election contrary to the election law and that vitiated the election and on that ground, we dismiss this appeal with costs to the 1st respondent against the appellant and the 2nd and 3rd respondents jointly and severally, capped at Kenya Shillings four million (Kshs.4,000,000/=).
DATED and delivered at Kisumu this 14th day of March, 2014.
Petition No, 5 of 2013.
Petition No. 1 of 2001.
2012 SCC 55 – 2012 – 10 – 256.
Nigeria Court of Appeal (Ilorin Division) CA/IL/EP/Gov/25/2008.
Kenya ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights on 1st March 1972, and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on 23rd October1992.
3 All ER 722 at p. 728.
Election Appeal No. 11 of 2007.
Section 87(1) of the Elections Act read together with Section 72(3)(b) of the same Act.
The Representation of People Act 1983, Section 159(1).
Thomas Nelson Incorporation, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, 1995.
The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 12th edition, 2011, Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6DP.
 AIR 1253, 1986 SCR (2) 782.
See Volume 15 of Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Edition (Vol. 15, 4th ed. p. 425, par. 780) and the Zambian Court of appeal decision in Michael Mabenga v. SikotaWina& 2 Others, SCZ No. 15 of 2003.
See Ted OpitzvsBorysWrzesnewskyj, 2012 SCC 55, where there was a margin of only 6 votes and the election was upheld.
Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2010, (CA).
See Volume 14 of Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd edition, at p. 244.
See Volume 14 of Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd edition, at par. 261.

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