Why did Chebukati lock other candidates out

[patel]

If that's the case ekuru Akot and Wainaina were enjoined in NASA petition.  All Avenue of kicking jubilee out should be explored including tosharing someone else.   

[Higgins the genius]

Will Aukot challenge it at Supreme Court or what?  Lower cannot overrule the Supreme Court

[Kadame7]

Ok, got home, looked at them....and....OMG!!!

People, look at those sections by themselves and then go back and re-read the court's reasoning and tell me I'm court-bashing when I say this interpretation is entirely imaginary and truly ASININE. The court basically is reinventing the simple, natural meaning of the word "fresh" used for the invalidation scenario to make up a whole bunch of restrictions that don't exist in that term at all. It seems to have done so by mixing up the word "fresh" in the provision for no-round-one winner (which provides for no. 1 and 2); with its use in the bit on an invalidated election. Please read the two sections by themselves without assuming anything and tell me how in the world these six people (to quote Uhuru! ) decided that "fresh" meant "petitioners only"???? or implies anything about a no. 2

One paragraph says that the fresh election is essentially a repeat of the invalidated one so that there's no need for the nomination stage. That seems a reasonable enough interpretation. And then from this the court inexplicably says that in addition, among those who participated in the first election, only those who petitioned the court can participate in this repeat exercise.  There is nothing remotely implying this anywhere except what the court has basically invented and injected into "fresh". So while the court should have answered "how fresh" the new elections should be, deciding between these two reasonable interpretations: either with potentially brand new candidates or just a repeat of the bangled exercise with the same set of candidates, the court jumped from all this and added something not in any way implied by "fresh elections": petitioners only!!!!  The court seems to have confused itself by mixing up the use of fresh in those two different contexts. That's the only explanation I can think of for bringing up a no. 2 in the event of invalidation. (And if we are to be logical here, how could there be a no. 2 in a nullified exercise?)

What was up with that bunch? Please look at those provisions and tell me if you would ever think of "petitioners only" or "person with the second most votes" from the term "fresh elections". Or was the court using the drafting history of those provisions to infer what what was intended there when it was crafted (and didn't quote it)? I doubt that was the intention behind it because it seems a simple sub-section making that clear would have been simple enough rather than this convoluted reasoning...But I don't get where the "petitioners only" came from with "fresh elections". Amazing. Wonder whether this was another "political decision"? 

On the bright side, I think everyone on nipate is qualified to be a judge in Kenya's high courts as everyone here reasons TONNES better than this when defending their arguments. 

[MOON Ki]

Will Aukot challenge it at Supreme Court or what?  Lower cannot overrule the Supreme Court

The SC may be asked to review its own decision. Also, its composition has changed.

[RV Pundit]

In any case Aukot had no value. He should let us have re-run of Odinga and Uhuru - so we can close this sad chapter of Raila Odinga with finality. SC argument that re-run is btw two candidates doesn't make much sense - what if petitioner is non-candidate.

[Nefertiti]

The ruling says if the petitioner is a non-candidate then all the candidates are allowed to run.

In any case Aukot had no value. He should let us have re-run of Odinga and Uhuru - so we can close this sad chapter of Raila Odinga with finality. SC argument that re-run is btw two candidates doesn't make much sense - what if petitioner is non-candidate.