Feisal Abdinoor Issack v IEBC & 2 others [2018] KEMC 3 (KLR)

Facts

The petitioner contested for the seat of member of County Assembly for Township Ward in the August 2017 general elections. He alleged voter bribery, presiding officers being relatives of the 3rd Respondent, irregularities, and violation of his right to vote.

Issues

1. Did the 3rd Respondent and/or his agents engage in voter bribery on the 8th of August 2017 during the election of the member of county assembly in Township Ward?
2. Did the 3rd Respondent have relatives who were working for the 1st Respondent as presiding officers in some polling stations in Township Ward during the August Elections?
3. Did the 1st and 2nd Respondents conduct the August 2017 in township Ward in an efficient, accurate and accountable manner?
4. Did the 1st and 2nd Respondents adhere to the regulations and laws governing elections?
5. Were there any anomalies in the form 36As from all the 27 polling stations in Township Ward?
6. Did the anomalies have an effect on the final tally of the votes?
7. Did the 1st and 2nd Respondents allow the petitioner to vote at his designated polling station?
8. Did the 1st Respondent avail the list of all the presiding officers to the petitioner?

Reasoning

The court ruled that the petitioner's evidence on voter bribery was hearsay and lacked specific details, making it inadmissible.

Outcome

The court found in favor of the respondents and awarded costs to the respondents.

Authorities cited