Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Politics
»
Supreme Court full ruling:
Rank: Elder Joined: 4/30/2008 Posts: 6,029
|
muganda wrote:Good judgement if I may say so.
[303] We came to the conclusion that, by no means can the conduct of this election be said to have been perfect, even though, quite clearly, the election had been of the greatest interest to the Kenyan people, and they had voluntarily come out into the polling stations, for the purpose of electing the occupant of the Presidential office.
[304] Did the Petitioner clearly and decisively show the conduct of the election to have been so devoid of merits, and so distorted, as not to reflect the expression of the people’s electoral intent? It is this broad test that should guide us in this kind of case, in deciding whether we should disturb the outcome of the Presidential election.
[306]In summary, the evidence, in our opinion, does not disclose any profound irregularity in the management of the electoral process, nor does it gravely impeach the mode of participation in the electoral process by any of the candidates who offered himself or herself before the voting public.
A clever way to force some diehard wazuans allied to a certain coalition to read part of the ruling.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 9/15/2006 Posts: 3,908
|
In brief:
1. They felt petitioner is under obligation to discharge initial burden of proof before it shifts. And standard of proof should only be above balance of probability and not as high as beyond-reasonable-doubt.
2. Time-lines laid out in the Constitution are most material, and may not be ousted by being viewed as a procedural technicality.
3. Supreme Court opted to be guided by fidelity to the terms of the Constitution, rather than adopt the argument of judicial restraint.
4. Different reasons explain failure of EVID/RTS and they recommend that this matter be entrusted to the relevant State agency, for further investigation and possible prosecution of suspects. In their opinion, IEBC had no option but to revert to manual electoral system. They negated contention an injustice, or illegality, automatically arises by IEBC going manual.
5. Relocation of party agents which arose when they became rowdy and quarrelsome in the interests of good order, peace and security, did not undermine the credibility of the tallying.
6. Multiplicity of registers is a reality of Kenya’s voter registration system which is recognized in law and widely acknowledged in practice.
7. Although there were many irregularities in the data and information-capture during the registration process, these were not so substantial as to affect the credibility of the electoral process; and besides, no credible evidence was adduced to show that such irregularities were premeditated and introduced by the 1st Respondent, for the purpose of causing prejudice to any particular candidate.
8. A vote which is rejected should not confer any advantage on any candidate, whether a winner or loser, as it is invalid.
9. If an election petition is raised by 2nd place contender, and is successful, then a run-off between first and second candidates would take place.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/17/2008 Posts: 23,365 Location: Nairobi
|
muganda wrote:In brief:
1. They felt petitioner is under obligation to discharge initial burden of proof before it shifts. And standard of proof should only be above balance of probability and not as high as beyond-reasonable-doubt.
2. Time-lines laid out in the Constitution are most material, and may not be ousted by being viewed as a procedural technicality.
3. Supreme Court opted to be guided by fidelity to the terms of the Constitution, rather than adopt the argument of judicial restraint.
4. Different reasons explain failure of EVID/RTS and they recommend that this matter be entrusted to the relevant State agency, for further investigation and possible prosecution of suspects. In their opinion, IEBC had no option but to revert to manual electoral system. They negated contention an injustice, or illegality, automatically arises by IEBC going manual.
5. Relocation of party agents which arose when they became rowdy and quarrelsome in the interests of good order, peace and security, did not undermine the credibility of the tallying.
6. Multiplicity of registers is a reality of Kenya’s voter registration system which is recognized in law and widely acknowledged in practice.
7. Although there were many irregularities in the data and information-capture during the registration process, these were not so substantial as to affect the credibility of the electoral process; and besides, no credible evidence was adduced to show that such irregularities were premeditated and introduced by the 1st Respondent, for the purpose of causing prejudice to any particular candidate.
8. A vote which is rejected should not confer any advantage on any candidate, whether a winner or loser, as it is invalid.
9. If an election petition is raised by 2nd place contender, and is successful, then a run-off between first and second candidates would take place.
Aha, same as: 1. That IEBC had the discretion to conduct vote tallying to the exclusion of party agents at Bomas and in so doing, its conduct did not prejudice any party. 2. That use of technology such us BVR, EVID and electronic transmission of results was optional and no law was broken by IEBC resorting to manual system. ... 3. That IEBC committed no breach of the law by having different registers since the same were used to take care of different groups. 4. That although the Green book was not provided for in the law, IEBC was justified to use it as aprimary document of developing the voter reigister. 5. That although scrutiny of forms 34 & 36 revealed several discrepancies, no evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the discrepancies affected the final out come. ....just different language ama???? ..."Wewe ni mtu mdogo sana....na mwenye amekuandika pia ni mtu mdogo sana!".
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 8/27/2012 Posts: 320
|
McReggae wrote:muganda wrote:In brief:
1. They felt petitioner is under obligation to discharge initial burden of proof before it shifts. And standard of proof should only be above balance of probability and not as high as beyond-reasonable-doubt.
2. Time-lines laid out in the Constitution are most material, and may not be ousted by being viewed as a procedural technicality.
3. Supreme Court opted to be guided by fidelity to the terms of the Constitution, rather than adopt the argument of judicial restraint.
4. Different reasons explain failure of EVID/RTS and they recommend that this matter be entrusted to the relevant State agency, for further investigation and possible prosecution of suspects. In their opinion, IEBC had no option but to revert to manual electoral system. They negated contention an injustice, or illegality, automatically arises by IEBC going manual.
5. Relocation of party agents which arose when they became rowdy and quarrelsome in the interests of good order, peace and security, did not undermine the credibility of the tallying.
6. Multiplicity of registers is a reality of Kenya’s voter registration system which is recognized in law and widely acknowledged in practice.
7. Although there were many irregularities in the data and information-capture during the registration process, these were not so substantial as to affect the credibility of the electoral process; and besides, no credible evidence was adduced to show that such irregularities were premeditated and introduced by the 1st Respondent, for the purpose of causing prejudice to any particular candidate.
8. A vote which is rejected should not confer any advantage on any candidate, whether a winner or loser, as it is invalid.
9. If an election petition is raised by 2nd place contender, and is successful, then a run-off between first and second candidates would take place.
Aha, same as: 1. That IEBC had the discretion to conduct vote tallying to the exclusion of party agents at Bomas and in so doing, its conduct did not prejudice any party. 2. That use of technology such us BVR, EVID and electronic transmission of results was optional and no law was broken by IEBC resorting to manual system. ... 3. That IEBC committed no breach of the law by having different registers since the same were used to take care of different groups. 4. That although the Green book was not provided for in the law, IEBC was justified to use it as aprimary document of developing the voter reigister. 5. That although scrutiny of forms 34 & 36 revealed several discrepancies, no evidence was adduced to demonstrate that the discrepancies affected the final out come. ....just different language ama???? it appears so. Light Bearer
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 8/10/2008 Posts: 480
|
As expected, we will analyze the ruling not for what it is, but for who we are.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 4/30/2008 Posts: 6,029
|
As a Jubilant I have to side with Ahmednasir.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/7/2011 Posts: 410
|
Were bound to watch this ruling on national tvs over the whole wk.....en in the meantyme every1 has there own way of interprating it.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/20/2012 Posts: 3,855 Location: Othumo
|
the second sentence of Ahmednasir is uncalled for. He proved that in court, and WE have moved on - PEACE! Thieves
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 8/27/2012 Posts: 320
|
mawinder wrote:tutebeng wrote:Now that we are talking about judgements, can somebody advise on the in-duplum rule. Some background. A bank current account had a debit balance of Kshs 298,000 in august last year 2012, the customer paid the bank 297,000 and then did not make further payments, the bank has been posting interest and penalties and interest on the account and now April 2012 the bank is demanding 8,700/- and continues to accrue. The customer has not used the account over the entire period. For how long should this piling of penalties and interest continue? Is there point of stopping. The bank has referred the matter to the Credit Reference Bureau. What is this post doing here?Is it Jubilee Bank or Cord Bank?Hapa we are outside Nakumatt City Hall.Mambo ya pesa peleka huko!!!!!!! huko wapi? nakumatt? Light Bearer
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 4/30/2008 Posts: 6,029
|
Annti_Christy wrote:mawinder wrote:tutebeng wrote:Now that we are talking about judgements, can somebody advise on the in-duplum rule. Some background. A bank current account had a debit balance of Kshs 298,000 in august last year 2012, the customer paid the bank 297,000 and then did not make further payments, the bank has been posting interest and penalties and interest on the account and now April 2012 the bank is demanding 8,700/- and continues to accrue. The customer has not used the account over the entire period. For how long should this piling of penalties and interest continue? Is there point of stopping. The bank has referred the matter to the Credit Reference Bureau. What is this post doing here?Is it Jubilee Bank or Cord Bank?Hapa we are outside Nakumatt City Hall.Mambo ya pesa peleka huko!!!!!!! huko wapi? nakumatt? Apeleke kwa Chase bank yenye naona hapo mbele.
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Politics
»
Supreme Court full ruling:
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|