It is funny how the 5.3M want the 6.1M to believe that it would have been justice served if the 5.3M won, this is the real jurispundence then

@Freiks, It's never about the winner or losser, but having a credible process that throws up the winner who we then can get behind and push the country's agenda without having the shadows of moi era or 2007 at the back of our minds! that's all.

In the spirit of moving on....legal minds in here, kindly indulge in the paragraphs below extracted from the SC ruling. I am still in stitches. One can only produce such great works and oxymorons when ones mind is full of sleep or when you delegate to your Gichana ya Kazi and don't bother to review. That analogy of football is a BIG FAT lie, unless they meant Rugby Football which would still be wrong. Football is yet to use TV monitoring to pick errors missed by referees, while in Rugby that only happens in the try area and there are no linesmen in Rugby. Was this a futuristic analogy????

[232] Failure of technology is relied upon by the Petitioners, on the footing that it disrupted the transmission of election results, and so, these results ceased to be in keeping with the secure standards required by law. The Petitioners contend that section 39 of the Elections Act, 2011 as read with Regulation 82 of the Elections (General) Regulations, 2012 creates a mandatory obligation to provide for the electronic transmission of the results.



[233] We take judicial notice that, as with all technologies, so it is with electoral technology: it is rarely perfect, and those employing it must remain open to the coming of new and improved technologies. Analogy may be drawn with the traditional refereeing methods in football which, as their defects became apparent, were not altogether abandoned, but were complemented with television-monitoring, which enabled watchers to detect errors in the pitch which had occurred too fast for the referees and linesmen and lineswomen to notice.



[234] In the instant case, there is evidence that the EVID and RTS technologies were used in the electoral process at the beginning, but they later stalled and crashed. Different reasons explain this failure but, by the depositions of Dismus Ong’ondi, the failure mainly arose from the misunderstandings and squabbles among IEBC members during the procurement process – squabbles which occasioned the failure to assess the integrity of the technologies in good time. It is, indeed, likely that the acquisition process was marked by competing interests involving impropriety, or even criminality: and we recommend that this matter be entrusted to the relevant State agency, for further investigation and possible prosecution of suspects.



[235] But as regards the integrity of the election itself, what lawful course could IEBC have taken after the transmission technology failed? There was no option, in our opinion, but to revert to the manual electoral system, as was done.



[236] We note from the evidence that the said manual system, though it did serve as a vital fall-back position, has itself a major weakness which IEBC has a public duty to set right. The ultimate safeguard for the voter registration process, namely “the Green Book”, has data that is not backed-up, just in case of a fire, or other like calamity. We signal this as an urgent item of the agenda of the IEBC, and recommend appropriate redressive action.



[237] From case law, and from Kenya’s electoral history, it is apparent that electronic technology has not provided perfect solutions. Such technology has been inherently undependable, and its adoption and application has been only incremental, over time. It is not surprising that the applicable law has entrusted a discretion to IEBC, on the application of such technology as may be found appropriate. Since such technology has not yet achieved a level of reliability, it cannot as yet be considered a permanent or irreversible foundation for the conduct of the electoral process. This negates the Petitioner’s contention that, in the instant case, injustice, or illegality in the conduct of election would result, if IEBC did not consistently employ electronic technology. It follows that the Petitioner’s case, insofar as it attributes nullity to the Presidential election on grounds of failed technological devices, is not sustainable.

Kwanza ati we were in the same league as S.A, was this before or after we got a new CJ....enyewe in Kenya kila mtu ni mjuaji.

Please don't stop on my account, carry on.

Hehehe Chief @Njung'e, what will you do if @Njungelet marries a CORD supporter, will you empathise?
And you know for a fact how they match well among the youth, like Omeo and Julieta