SCOK has wisely taken maximum time to finalize the ruling. This has given them an opportunity to survey the landscape, the players and potential pitfalls. Me thinks the ruling will hammer IEBC/jubilee into proper shape to hold an election that satisfies the requirements of the constitution and the law.
I don't rule out the entity trying to openly defy the ruling though; they are still in defiance of the court order on their servers. It's obvious for one reason or another the jubilant loathes his chances in an open verifiable contest.
Chebukati now wishes he did not allow Ruto to intimidate him into prematurely announcing the results and should have taken his maximum 7 days. This supreme court has balls-they refused to attend the opening of the parliament. Maybe this is the beginning of the end of mediocrity and government officials start taking their jobs seriously. If IEBC is hammered proper then there is not going to be an election on 10/17/2017. Heck, there may not be an election in 60 days. Caretaker government like secession is starting to be mentioned by mainstream folks.SCOK has wisely taken maximum time to finalize the ruling. This has given them an opportunity to survey the landscape, the players and potential pitfalls. Me thinks the ruling will hammer IEBC/jubilee into proper shape to hold an election that satisfies the requirements of the constitution and the law.
I don't rule out the entity trying to openly defy the ruling though; they are still in defiance of the court order on their servers. It's obvious for one reason or another the jubilant loathes his chances in an open verifiable contest.
Keep hope alive. SCOK judgement will be out today or tomorrow. And my bet it's so lame it taken them 21 days trying to find fillers and justify their moronic decision.
SCOK has wisely taken maximum time to finalize the ruling. This has given them an opportunity to survey the landscape, the players and potential pitfalls. Me thinks the ruling will hammer IEBC/jubilee into proper shape to hold an election that satisfies the requirements of the constitution and the law.Tons of wisdom in rendering a judgement retrospectively
I don't rule out the entity trying to openly defy the ruling though; they are still in defiance of the court order on their servers. It's obvious for one reason or another the jubilant loathes his chances in an open verifiable contest.
Not likely, Maraga knows the Jubilee attack dogs and propaganda machinery are waiting, so they are not going to come back with something mediocre. They also know this case will set a new precedent in Kenya and maybe be cited in the commonwealth courts.
Keep hope alive. SCOK judgement will be out today or tomorrow. And my bet it's so lame it taken them 21 days trying to find fillers and justify their moronic decision.
The days you used to make educated guesses are long behind you. You supported a 2013 judgement which you keep waving over our heads even as it creates more problems even today.
The issue here is: Are you aware that if Raila refuses to run there will be no election on the 17th and that a properly FRESH election would have to be done? Or do you want me to take you through the legal steps one by one?
I posted an article by an Uthamaki Damu advocate which said that (albeit with a tongue tied down by a ten ton stone) but you did not seem to pick up - most likely on account of excessive alcohol consumption brought on by the Mass Panic in the Ruto camp. Now read it and learn your ABC.
I hope you can now understand why I keep telling you to differentiate between what NASA / Raila is saying and what Jubilee/Ruto is claiming NASA is saying. Now you know Raila alone determines if there will be an election on 17th or March/ April 2018
IWINJO????Keep hope alive. SCOK judgement will be out today or tomorrow. And my bet it's so lame it taken them 21 days trying to find fillers and justify their moronic decision.
Now you're a constitutional lawyer. Save it.
When you are done with cheap matusi please here is the question:The constitution can be interpreted even by non lawyers. Really anyone with logic who can read can interpret that document for the most part. It was made so deliberately. Remember the civic education before the referendum where everyone got a copy and people in shags were sitting under trees to understand it? It has no unnecessary legalese. Its language is simple and plain.
1. Are you aware that if Raila chooses NOT to run, as fresh election would have to be held?
2. Raila alone determines if any election will be held under the 60 day period?
3. Unless Maraga and company vacate the silly 2013 judgment that you praise daily 1 & 2 are guaranteed?
The matter of constitutional lawyers having the monopoly to interpret the constitution was put to rest eons ago. You must have been have been in a drunken coma when it happened.Now you're a constitutional lawyer. Save it.
Likewise, if the procedure under Article 138 is not followed, then the foreseeable political future of Kenya rests in the hands of Raila as there would be no constitutional basis for Kenya to have a legitimate President without going through the rigours of an election.
Following the decision made on September 1 by majority of the Supreme Court judges to nullify the August 8 presidential election, the IEBC notified the public that a fresh election will be held on October 17.
In a gazette notice, the IEBC also notified the public that there will be no nominations for candidates participating in the fresh election, and relying on the 2013 decision of the Supreme Court in Raila Odinga’s presidential petition, declared the contest will be between Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga.
From both practical and public interest points of view, IEBC’s position presents the ideal scenario -- what Attorney General Githu Muigai calls best political outcome -- except for three complications that may have minor or devastating implications on stability of Kenya’s political order.
Run-off or fresh polls?
The first complication is that in its 2013 judgement, the Supreme Court did not render any decision on the basis of which IEBC can rule out fresh nominations and confine the contest to Uhuru and Raila. In my view, what the IEBC refers to a “decision” is at best a legislative proposal by the Supreme Court. I will shortly explain this minor complication.
The second complication is fairly serious because it could easily lead to nullification of the fresh presidential elections. The explanation may sound complicated but it is fairly simple when you grasp the essence of the fresh election pursuant to Article 140 of the Constitution. The procedure for presidential election is set out in Article 138. and for purposes of this article, two things should be noted.
First, nomination of candidates is a precondition for the election of president pursuant to Article 136 or in the event that such election is cancelled in the circumstances set out in Article 138(8.) . Secondly, in the event of a fresh election as contemplated in Article 138(5), no fresh nominations are necessary because such fresh election is actually a run-off and merely a continuation of the initial election that has not produced a winner. This run-off must be held within 30 days of the previous election.
It cannot be gainsaid that the fresh presidential election occasioned by nullification of Uhuru’s election will not be a run-off which is why the Constitution provides for 60 days similar to a new election following cancellation of presidential election under Article 138(8.). In its 2013 judgement, the Supreme Court stated that a fresh election triggered by the invalidation of the declared president-elect does not require fresh nomination of candidates because “such a fresh election is built on the foundations of the invalidated election”. It boggles the mind that the Supreme Court could utter such statement.
This reasoning is untenable and contradictory. In plain English, the word nullify means two things. First to make a legal agreement or decision have no legal force. Secondly, to cause something to have no value or effect. The immediate effect of the decision of the Supreme Court majority to invalidate Uhuru’s election is that the certificate of president-elect issued to him by Wafula Chebukati on August 11 was rendered a nullity. The original basis for the said certificate of president-elect is that Uhuru had on May 29, 2017 been issued with a certificate of nomination as the Jubilee Party presidential candidate for the August 8 election.
Baldly stated, the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the 2013 judgement is that after an election of President is invalidated, the certificate of President-elect is nullified but the certificate of nomination remains valid and somehow survives as a foundation for the fresh election.
This strange reasoning begs the questions: Why is this not the case in parliamentary and other elections? If the nomination certificates issued to Uhuru and Raila for the August 8 election are still valid, why is this not the case for Ekuru Aukot and the other fringe candidates? How will IEBC justify application of some sub-clauses of Article 138 and not others, particularly regarding nominations? Most importantly, if Uhuru and Raila were issued with nomination certificates for the presidential election held August 8, does each of them truly believe such certificate is valid for the fresh election on October 17?
The third complication relates to the legal consequences of Raila’s threat to either pull-out or impede the holding of the fresh election ordered by the Supreme Court unless his impossible sounding conditions are met by IEBC. On the face of it, if the order for fresh elections is interpreted to mean an election between Uhuru and Raila – as the Supreme Court opinion of 2013 suggests – then there is great trouble for Kenya ahead if Raila pulls out of the October contest.
Constitutional crisis
Without a doubt, such a scenario will plunge Kenya into a constitutional crisis which would have to be cured by either a NASA-instigated civilian coup (read nusu mkate care-taker government) or a Jubilee-led palace coup in which Jubilee Party damns the Constitution and claims Kenyans had already given Uhuru a new mandate in August. This kind of uncertainty is preventable and this is how.
There are only three circumstances under which the Supreme Court can make binding decisions. First, the Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to elections to the office of the President. Secondly, it has appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine select appeals from the Court of Appeal. Thirdly, under Article 163(6) the Supreme Court may give advisory opinions. The purported decision of 2013 that IEBC is citing in its gazette notice for the October 17 fresh presidential elections is not a decision made under any of the three circumstances above. Logically one may ask: what was it then?
Like in 2017, the AG was admitted as amicus curiae (friend of court) during the 2013 petition. Based on an apparent apprehension that there was a lacuna in law in the event that Uhuru’s election was invalidated, the AG invited the court to answer the following question: “Does the fresh election anticipated by Article 140(3) mean an entirely new presidential election (including the nomination process), or does it mean a similar election as that anticipated under Article 138(5) and (7) – with the same candidates as in the earlier poll?”
Line of relief
The Supreme Court understood the AG as inviting it “to give directions on a line of relief declared by the Constitution depending on merits”. Upon accepting the AG’s invitation, the court gave its directions and answers to his questions. In my view, the directions and answers given in 2013 do not amount to a decision of the Supreme Court under Article 163 as argued above.
For avoidance of doubt, Article 138 sets out the procedure of presidential election whether such election is triggered by the expiry of the President’s term under Article 136(2)(a), impeachment of the President under Article 146 or invalidation of a presidential election under Article 140. The way I see it is that the directions and answers in the 2013 judgement were based on the understandable inclinations of the AG and the Supreme Court to avoid the procedure set out in Article 138. In 2013 the merits of those answers and directions were not put to test as Raila’s petition did not succeed.
In 2017, I am afraid there would be dire consequences for Kenya if the IEBC tries to avoid Article 138 whilst Raila is threatening to pull-out of the fresh elections. The reason is simple: If the procedure under Article 138 is followed and nominations conducted, it will not matter whether or not Raila pulls out of the race because IEBC will simply declare the nominated candidate as elected.
Likewise, if the procedure under Article 138 is not followed, then the foreseeable political future of Kenya rests in the hands of Raila as there would be no constitutional basis for Kenya to have a legitimate President without going through the rigours of an election.
- The writer is a constitutional lawyer: kibemungai@yahoo.com
Ohoo keep quoting Kibe. Uhuru will continue as PORK until another pork is elected. And there will be election whether raila likes or not. If you have constitution that forces us to have raila - go ahead and tell him to write to IEBC formaly withradwing.
If elections is not held within 60 days, ouru's authority/legitimacy is done and a caretaker should take over. If he stays in power by force then whatever he does is none binding and will be declared unconstitutional by the court.Ohoo keep quoting Kibe. Uhuru will continue as PORK until another pork is elected. And there will be election whether raila likes or not. If you have constitution that forces us to have raila - go ahead and tell him to write to IEBC formaly withradwing.
It would depend on how "Raila does NOT run"Not sure about that.
1) He writes to IEBC to withdraw his candidature - Uhuru is declared automatic winner like Kikuyu MP Kimani Ichung'wa
2) He asks his supporters to boycot the elections - Uhuru wins by a very big margin
It would depend on how "Raila does NOT run"
1) He writes to IEBC to withdraw his candidature - Uhuru is declared automatic winner like Kikuyu MP Kimani Ichung'wa
2) He asks his supporters to boycot the elections - Uhuru wins by a very big margin
Either scenario could be peaceful or violent. Kibe's take - that the 2013 decision on re-run candidates was non-binding - can only be sanctioned by the same SCOK. What became of Ekuru's case - will it be decided tomorrow as well?
What would be Raila's motivation here? The IEBC would conduct the elections regardless of who the candidates are. More reforms? Or NASA can front Madvd-Kalonzo - in fresh nominations - this I would like to see :)
It would depend on how "Raila does NOT run"There's a pet theory being peddled that any candidate pulling out of the race means no elections and no elections means constitutional crisis and constitutional crisis means 'caretaker government'.
1) He writes to IEBC to withdraw his candidature - Uhuru is declared automatic winner like Kikuyu MP Kimani Ichung'wa
2) He asks his supporters to boycot the elections - Uhuru wins by a very big margin
Either scenario could be peaceful or violent. Kibe's take - that the 2013 decision on re-run candidates was non-binding - can only be sanctioned by the same SCOK. What became of Ekuru's case - will it be decided tomorrow as well?
What would be Raila's motivation here? The IEBC would conduct the elections regardless of who the candidates are. More reforms? Or NASA can front Madvd-Kalonzo - in fresh nominations - this I would like to see :)
It would depend on how "Raila does NOT run"There's a pet theory being peddled that any candidate pulling out of the race means no elections and no elections means constitutional crisis and constitutional crisis means 'caretaker government'.
1) He writes to IEBC to withdraw his candidature - Uhuru is declared automatic winner like Kikuyu MP Kimani Ichung'wa
2) He asks his supporters to boycot the elections - Uhuru wins by a very big margin
Either scenario could be peaceful or violent. Kibe's take - that the 2013 decision on re-run candidates was non-binding - can only be sanctioned by the same SCOK. What became of Ekuru's case - will it be decided tomorrow as well?
What would be Raila's motivation here? The IEBC would conduct the elections regardless of who the candidates are. More reforms? Or NASA can front Madvd-Kalonzo - in fresh nominations - this I would like to see :)
It follows that Jubilee must prostrate itself before Babu and lick his rear lest he is tempted to reduce Uhunye from a temporary incumbent to a raia by just pulling out.
Read my last post for answers or find PETITION NO. 5 OF 2013, RAILA ODINGA vs THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION and others. Scroll to 285 -294 and when you are done you will know why I call Githu Muigai Consigliere!:cool2:
Read my last post for answers or find PETITION NO. 5 OF 2013, RAILA ODINGA vs THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION and others. Scroll to 285 -294 and when you are done you will know why I call Githu Muigai Consigliere!
290 is why I questioned Raila's motivation in abandoning the re-run. The effect of that is exactly what he would be abandoning - another election - with IEBC - the only difference is fresh nominations. And the incumbent would remain in office until then.
Keep dreaming on.Let Raila officially withdraw and saves us the rerun
I respectfully submit that you are the one snoring in the midst of a busy highway at high noon!The idea that if Raila withdraws, Uhuru becomes president automatically....where does it come from? Do you know? I've seen it here a few times.Keep dreaming on.Let Raila officially withdraw and saves us the rerun
The idea that if Raila withdraws, Uhuru becomes president automatically....where does it come from? Do you know? I've seen it here a few times.
The constitution. Uhuru would be unopposed in the re-run and IEBC would declared him PORK. Uhuru has was already nominated - so this tortured arguments about nomination was already one.The idea that if Raila withdraws, Uhuru becomes president automatically....where does it come from? Do you know? I've seen it here a few times.
Do you now say the Supreme Court has no powers to interpret the constitution?
Pole bro! I feel your pain-
The constitution. Uhuru would be unopposed in the re-run and IEBC would declared him PORK. Uhuru has was already nominated - so this tortured arguments about nomination was already one.:o Please tell me what part of the constitution says if candidates withdraw, whoever is left becomes president automatically and the citizenry don't get to elect their own president?The idea that if Raila withdraws, Uhuru becomes president automatically....where does it come from? Do you know? I've seen it here a few times.
:o Please tell me what part of the constitution says if candidates withdraw, whoever is left becomes president automatically and the citizenry don't get to elect their own president?
| (1) If only one candidate for President is nominated, that candidate shall be declared elected. (2) If two or more candidates for President are nominated, an election shall be held in each constituency. (3) In a presidential election-- (a) all persons registered as voters for the purposes of parliamentary elections are entitled to vote; (b) the poll shall be taken by secret ballot on the day specified in Article 101 (1) at the time, in the places and in the manner prescribed under an Act of Parliament; and (c) after counting the votes in the polling stations, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall tally and verify the count and declare the result. (4) A candidate shall be declared elected as President if the candidate receives-- (a) more than half of all the votes cast in the election; and (b) at least twenty-five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties. (5) If no candidate is elected, a fresh election shall be held within thirty days after the previous election and in that fresh election the only candidates shall be-- (a) the candidate, or the candidates, who received the greatest number of votes; and (b) the candidate, or the candidates, who received the second greatest number of votes. (6) If more than one candidate receives the greatest number of votes, clause (5) (b) shall not apply and the only candidates in the fresh election shall be those contemplated in clause (5) (a). (7) The candidate who receives the most votes in the fresh election shall be declared elected as President. (8) A presidential election shall be cancelled and a new election held if-- (a) no person has been nominated as a candidate before the expiry of the period set for the delivery of nominations; (b) a candidate for election as President or Deputy President dies on or before the scheduled election date; or (c) a candidate who would have been entitled to be declared elected as President, dies before being declared elected as President. (9) A new presidential election under clause (8) shall be held within sixty days after the date set for the previous presidential election. (10) Within seven days after the presidential election, the chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall-- (a) declare the result of the election; and (b) deliver a written notification of the result to the Chief Justice and the incumbent Preside |
If raila withdraw his candidature;there are two things - IEBC can conduct an election anyway - and waste time - or interpret his move as withdrawal of his nomination.
(1) If only one candidate for President is nominated, that candidate shall be declared elected.
(2) If two or more candidates for President are nominated, an election shall be held in each constituency.
(3) In a presidential election--
(a) all persons registered as voters for the purposes of parliamentary elections are entitled to vote;
(b) the poll shall be taken by secret ballot on the day specified in Article 101 (1) at the time, in the places and in the manner prescribed under an Act of Parliament; and
(c) after counting the votes in the polling stations, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall tally and verify the count and declare the result.
(4) A candidate shall be declared elected as President if the candidate receives--
(a) more than half of all the votes cast in the election; and
(b) at least twenty-five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.
(5) If no candidate is elected, a fresh election shall be held within thirty days after the previous election and in that fresh election the only candidates shall be--
(a) the candidate, or the candidates, who received the greatest number of votes; and
(b) the candidate, or the candidates, who received the second greatest number of votes.
(6) If more than one candidate receives the greatest number of votes, clause (5) (b) shall not apply and the only candidates in the fresh election shall be those contemplated in clause (5) (a).
(7) The candidate who receives the most votes in the fresh election shall be declared elected as President.
(8) A presidential election shall be cancelled and a new election held if--
(a) no person has been nominated as a candidate before the expiry of the period set for the delivery of nominations;
(b) a candidate for election as President or Deputy President dies on or before the scheduled election date; or
(c) a candidate who would have been entitled to be declared elected as President, dies before being declared elected as President.
(9) A new presidential election under clause (8) shall be held within sixty days after the date set for the previous presidential election.
(10) Within seven days after the presidential election, the chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission shall--
(a) declare the result of the election; and
(b) deliver a written notification of the result to the Chief Justice and the incumbent Preside
Pundit, methinks the situation where there are no available/willing candidates to be president except one is not the same as where someone(s) withdraws just before the election at the tail end of a very long process. Methinks the first envisages a situation where no one wants/is qualified to be president except one and that this situation is all very clear to the electorate as/before it happens.
KadameKibe was giving them a way to pretend to ignore that interpretation by pretending it was non-binding, :D Maybe that's where the hope comes from.
Do not labor. The AG invited the SCOK to rule on the matter. The interpretation is contained in the Raila vs IEBC. There is no nomination. The SCOK went further to state what would happen in event one of the two dies or withdraws.Pundit, methinks the situation where there are no available/willing candidates to be president except one is not the same as where someone(s) withdraws just before the election at the tail end of a very long process. Methinks the first envisages a situation where no one wants/is qualified to be president except one and that this situation is all very clear to the electorate as/before it happens.
Pundit, methinks the situation where there are no available/willing candidates to be president except one is not the same as where someone(s) withdraws just before the election at the tail end of a very long process. Methinks the first envisages a situation where no one wants/is qualified to be president except one and that this situation is all very clear to the electorate as/before it happens.
Kibe was giving them a way to pretend to ignore that interpretation by pretending it was non-binding, :D Maybe that's where the hope comes from.But in the end he too agreed there was simply no way out unless the SCOK vacated that. However the order was made 21 days ago and it is already overtaken by events. There is only one other way but I don't see how it could work. I will reveal next week
That is tortured argument. There is no long process. There is nomination and election. If you withdraw from election - then candidate become un-opposed. If you die - before it - then we have new nomination. In any case why are we even worried about this - Let NASA do their thing - and we shall see. Just refuse to participate.If that's true, why do you think death of candidates results in a fresh election? The situation is the same, no? You have only one candidate left standing at the end. Why not elect him "unopposed" as there is no one else but one? Because things at the end are different from things at the beginning. The electorate can now reconfigure and nominate someone else. But as Omollo wisely reminds us, it doesn't matter. Githu already made sure in 2013 that this section was rewritten and Chebukati is planning the election on the basis of that Githu-fed reading. So yeah, let us wait.Pundit, methinks the situation where there are no available/willing candidates to be president except one is not the same as where someone(s) withdraws just before the election at the tail end of a very long process. Methinks the first envisages a situation where no one wants/is qualified to be president except one and that this situation is all very clear to the electorate as/before it happens.
That is tortured argument. There is no long process. There is nomination and election. If you withdraw from election - then candidate become un-opposed. If you die - before it - then we have new nomination. In any case why are we even worried about this - Let NASA do their thing - and we shall see. Just refuse to participate.Pundit, methinks the situation where there are no available/willing candidates to be president except one is not the same as where someone(s) withdraws just before the election at the tail end of a very long process. Methinks the first envisages a situation where no one wants/is qualified to be president except one and that this situation is all very clear to the electorate as/before it happens.
Yeah, my hunch is that he admitted that only because Chebukati has already indicated he is obeying it. Kibe can't tell him in broad daylight to ignore it without finding a basis to unilaterally set aside a SCOK finding which is non-existent. It makes no sense why he would go round and round trying to say that the SCOK interpretation was non-binding except to tell "someone" somewhere not to follow it. I think IEBC pre-empted him. He probably wishes Chebu had consulted him quietly first.Kibe was giving them a way to pretend to ignore that interpretation by pretending it was non-binding, :D Maybe that's where the hope comes from.But in the end he too agreed there was simply no way out unless the SCOK vacated that. However the order was made 21 days ago and it is already overtaken by events. There is only one other way but I don't see how it could work. I will reveal next week
Kibe blames the IEBC instead of Githu.
When will the nomination for this planned election take place bro? :D
What for - and the two have been nominated. If Raila want to withdraw his candidature - do it.Pundit, read the 2013 interpretation that Chebukati recently gave as his basis for how he is conducting this election. It will inform you on what Omollo is telling you.When will the nomination for this planned election take place bro? :D
What for - and the two have been nominated. If Raila want to withdraw his candidature - do it.When will the nomination for this planned election take place bro? :D
So Aukot, Jirongo, Wainaina, Dida can also run... they were also nominated... right?
They already conceded - a repeat election ordered btw two nominated - one has dropped out - so we just have one left - IEBC can proceed to conduct a mock election if they want or simply declare the duly nominated Uhuru duly elected.So is this yours or the SCOK understanding? Please read it. It's a page/two: very short.So Aukot, Jirongo, Wainaina, Dida can also run... they were also nominated... right?
So is this yours or the SCOK understanding? Please read it. It's a page/two: very short.
They already conceded - a repeat election ordered btw two nominated - one has dropped out - so we just have one left - IEBC can proceed to conduct a mock election if they want or simply declare the duly nominated Uhuru duly elected.So Aukot, Jirongo, Wainaina, Dida can also run... they were also nominated... right?
I read it. It stupid decision that seem to say - we go for fresh nomination - and hold new election. Nothing really changes. Uhuru continues. IEBC simply add 2-3 months.If you read it, why do you keep insisting that Uhuru will be elected unopposed? Are you saying that SCOK interpretation will not be followed about starting new elections if candidates pull out?So is this yours or the SCOK understanding? Please read it. It's a page/two: very short.
So what do you think of the opinion by the Supreme Court (2013) that if one candidate of the two pulls out the process end and we start afresh? Do we still act as if the SCOK made no finding?
I read it. It stupid decision that seem to say - we go for fresh nomination - and hold new election. Nothing really changes. Uhuru continues. IEBC simply add 2-3 months.[289] It is clear that a fresh election under Article 140(3) is triggered by the invalidation of the election of the declared President-elect, by the Supreme Court, following a successful petition against such election. Since such a fresh election is built on the foundations of the invalidated election, it can, in our opinion, only involve candidates who participated in the original election. In that case, there will be no basis for a fresh nomination of candidates for the resultant electoral contest.
Granted. IEBC - simply invites nomination - and set a new election date - just add a week for nomination and 45 days for campaigning. Raila refuses and Uhuru compete with whoever want to compete with Jubilee joggernaut. First let Raila withdraw and then we can go back to SCOK to clarify this.
[290] Suppose, however, that the candidates, or a candidate who took part in the original election, dies or abandons the electoral quest before the scheduled date: then the provisions of Article 138(1) (b) would become applicable, with fresh nominations ensuing.
QuoteRes judicata (RJ) or res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and refers to either of two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "preclusion".
In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.
The doctrine of res judicata is a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion.
Babu is no fool.
If he pulls out under the delusion that there will be no ‘fresh’ election(re-run/runoff) but FRESH elections, Jubileee will rush to court challenge this,which may go either way and that’s a gamble he’s not ready to take
What would Jubilee be praying for? Is there an issue that is unclear which Jubilee would want the SCOK to clarify? I see a clearly stated opinion:Who said these words?Quote[290] Suppose, however, that the candidates, or a candidate who took part in the original election, dies or abandons the electoral quest before the scheduled date: then the provisions of Article 138(1) (b) would become applicable, with fresh nominations ensuing.
Let me define for you;QuoteQuoteRes judicata (RJ) or res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for "a matter [already] judged", and refers to either of two concepts: in both civil law and common law legal systems, a case in which there has been a final judgment and is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar (or preclude) continued litigation of a case on same issues between the same parties. In this latter usage, the term is synonymous with "preclusion".
In the case of res judicata, the matter cannot be raised again, either in the same court or in a different court. A court will use res judicata to deny reconsideration of a matter.
The doctrine of res judicata is a method of preventing injustice to the parties of a case supposedly finished, but perhaps also or mostly a way of avoiding unnecessary waste of resources in the court system. Res judicata does not merely prevent future judgments from contradicting earlier ones, but also prevents litigants from multiplying judgments, and confusion.Babu is no fool.
If he pulls out under the delusion that there will be no ‘fresh’ election(re-run/runoff) but FRESH elections, Jubileee will rush to court challenge this,which may go either way and that’s a gamble he’s not ready to take
Was the matter of spoilt ballots not settled before this very court NASWA introduced it?
1. Source: Raila vs IEBC (see the link I provided you earlier)Yes it is part of the petition but who said these words? The judges?
2. The matter cannot alone be brought before the court. It would be dispensed with in the preliminaries.
3. That aside the court lacks Retroactive powers. It can not outlaw something and penalize someone who followed the earlier instructions
Iwinjo?Was the matter of spoilt ballots not settled before this very court NASWA introduced it?
who said these words? The judges?
I have answered the same question four times. I passIt’s a rhetorical question.who said these words? The judges?