Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
MagistratePartially AllowedElection Petition (Malindi), 2017· [2018] KEMC 18 (KLR)

Mohamed Twaher Abdulkarim v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & 2 others [2018] KEMC 18 (KLR)

Magistrates' Court (Election Petition)
6 March 2018
7,244 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~29 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court nullified the Shella Ward MCA election after finding the vote was marred by serious procedural failures, ordering a fresh election.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, runner-up in the 8th August 2017 election for Member of County Assembly, Shella Ward, Malindi Constituency, Kilifi County, challenged the declaration of the 3rd Respondent as winner with 6,234 votes against his 3,784. He alleged violations of Articles 38, 81, 86 and 88 of the Constitution and electoral law: intimidation and ejection of his agents, late opening and early closing of polling stations, assisted voting without Form 32, unregistered voters voting, unsigned and unstamped Forms 36A, declaration of results in a non-statutory Form 36B (A4 paper) and a questionable Form 35B, and issuance of the Form 36C certificate before any Form 36B declaration. The Respondents denied the allegations, attributing defects to a faulty printer and human fatigue. Applying the intermediate standard of proof and the disjunctive limbs of Section 83 of the Elections Act, guided by Raila 2 and related authorities, the court found that assisted voters could not be accounted for absent Form 32; statutory forms were invalid and unverifiable; the certificate was issued before any statutory declaration; and late openings disenfranchised voters. Allegations of agent intimidation, unregistered voters, and campaigning in polling stations failed for lack of evidence. Holding that the irregularities violated Articles 38 and 86 and were grave, the court declared the 3rd Respondent not validly elected, nullified the election, ordered a fresh election, and awarded the Petitioner costs against the 1st and 2nd Respondents, capped at Ksh.2,000,000.

Key legal issues

#
01

Assisted voters without Form 32

Holding

Irregular, unprocedural and illegal assisted voting that compromises Article 86 of the Constitution.

Reasoning

Regulation 72 requires Form 32 to be filled and the register marked for assisted voters. Despite a marked register showing 39 assisted voters across three polling stations, no Form 32 was availed by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, so the assisted voters could not be accounted for, defeating transparency, accountability and verifiability.

p. 6
02

Invalidity of statutory forms (Forms 36A, 36B, 35B)

Holding

Unsigned, unstamped and unofficial forms render the declared results unverifiable; results from affected stations should be excluded.

Reasoning

Scrutiny revealed Forms 36A unstamped or with erased, uncountersigned vote alterations; two Forms 36B (A4 and A3) and a Form 35B of doubtful provenance. The Returning Officer's printer-defect explanation was found dishonest and unsupported by an incident report or production of all Forms 36A, violating Articles 38 and 86.

p. 10
03

Issuance of certificate (Form 36C) before declaration in Form 36B

Holding

Grave violation of Articles 38 and 86; declaration of the 3rd Respondent as winner on 10th August 2017 before statutory declaration was improper.

Reasoning

Form 36C was issued on 10th August 2017 before any Form 36B declaration. The 3rd Respondent admitted in cross-examination he received the certificate without Form 36B and did not know declaration must be in a prescribed form, confirming no verifiable declaration occurred on 10th August 2017.

04

Late opening and early closing of polling stations

Holding

Denial of registered voters' political right to vote under Article 38, affecting the results.

Reasoning

Respondents' witnesses admitted late openings due to logistical failures, including a misplaced ballot box. Scrutiny showed eleven polling stations opened late and/or closed earlier than extended hours, making it impossible to determine how many disenfranchised voters left without voting.

p. 12
05

Allegations of intimidation/ejection of agents, unregistered voters voting, denial of verification, and ODM campaigning

Holding

Not proved for lack of evidence.

Reasoning

The Petitioner laid no evidence in support of these allegations and provided no names or lists of unregistered voters, so they were dismissed.

p. 10
06

Validity of the 3rd Respondent's election

Holding

Not validly elected; election nullified.

Reasoning

Applying Raila 2 and Section 83 of the Elections Act disjunctively, the Petitioner proved substantial violations of constitutional principles – assisted voters, failure to declare in Form 36B, invalid statutory forms and late opening of polling stations – which made the election unverifiable, unfair, non-credible and unaccountable.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • In election petitions the standard of proof is intermediate – above balance of probability but below beyond reasonable doubt.
  • A petitioner must prove not only non-compliance with electoral law but that it affected the outcome of the election.
  • Affidavits whose deponents are not called for cross-examination carry little or no probative value.
  • A statutory form not signed by its author is worthless and its results must be excluded from the final tally.
  • The two limbs of Section 83 of the Elections Act apply disjunctively – proof of substantial violation of constitutional principles alone can void an election.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petition succeeds and is allowed.
  2. 2.The 3rd Respondent was not validly elected to the position of Member of County Assembly (MCA) for Shella Ward and his election is declared null and void.
  3. 3.The 1st Respondent to hold a fresh election in conformity with the Constitution and the Elections Act 2011 and other laws governing elections in Kenya.
  4. 4.The 1st and 2nd Respondents to jointly and severally pay costs to the Petitioner to be taxed by the Executive Officer of Malindi Law Courts, capped at Ksh.2,000,000/-.
Jurisdiction invoked
Elections Act 2011 and Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petition Rules, 2017 – first-instance election petition for Member of County Assembly, Shella Ward

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mohamed Twaher Abdulkarim v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & 2 others [2018] KEMC 18 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Election Petition (Malindi), 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2018/18/eng@2018-03-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.