Odinga & 16 others v Ruto & 10 others; Law Society of Kenya & 4 others (Amicus Curiae)
The bottom line
#Supreme Court upheld Ruto's election, rejecting claims of irregularities and confirming IEBC's tallying process.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court dismissed petitions challenging William Ruto's win in the 2022 presidential election. It ruled that the electoral commission (IEBC) as a whole, not just its chairperson, has the power to verify and tally results. The court also decided that rejected ballots don't count toward the 50%+1 threshold. It found no evidence of fraud or irregularities that would change the outcome.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the technology deployed by the IEBC for the conduct of the 2022 general elections met the standards of integrity, verifiability, security, and transparency to guarantee accurate and verifiable results
- 2.Whether there was interference with the uploading and transmission of Forms 34A from the Polling Stations to the IEBC Public Portal
- 3.Whether there was a difference between Forms 34A uploaded on the IEBC Public Portal and the Forms 34A received at the National Tallying Centre, and the Forms 34A issued to agents at the Polling Stations
- 4.Whether the postponement of Gubernatorial Elections in Kakamega and Mombasa counties, Parliamentary elections in Kitui Rural, Kacheliba, Rongai and Pokot South Constituencies and electoral wards in Nyaki West in North Imenti Constituency and Kwa Njenga in Embakasi South Constituency resulted in voter suppression to the detriment of the Petitioners in Petition No E005 of 2022
- 5.Whether there were unexplainable discrepancies between the votes cast for presidential candidates and other elective positions
- 6.Whether the IEBC carried out the verification, tallying, and declaration of results in accordance with article 138(3)(c) and 138(10) of the Constitution
- 7.Whether the declared President-elect attained 50%+1 of all the votes cast in accordance with article 138(4) of the Constitution
- 8.Whether there were irregularities and illegalities of such magnitude as to affect the final result of the Presidential Election
- 9.What reliefs and orders can the court grant/issue?
Key legal issues
#Whether the IEBC carried out verification, tallying, and declaration of results in accordance with Article 138(3)(c) and 138(10) of the Constitution, given the dispute between the Chairperson and four Commissioners.
The court held that the verification and tallying power vests in the Commission, not the Chairperson alone, but that the process was carried out in accordance with the Constitution despite the last-minute walkout by four Commissioners, as they had participated in the process until just before the declaration.
The court interpreted Article 138(3)(c) to vest the power to verify and tally results in the Commission as a corporate body, acting through its secretariat and staff under the oversight of the Chairperson and Commissioners. It found that Regulation 87(3) was unconstitutional to the extent it gave the Chairperson sole authority. However, the court noted that the four Commissioners had actively participated in the verification and tallying process until just before the declaration, and their last-minute denunciation, without evidence of actual compromise, did not invalidate the election. The court distinguished between internal governance dysfunction and the conduct of the election itself.
Whether the declared President-elect attained 50%+1 of all votes cast in accordance with Article 138(4) of the Constitution.
The court held that the 1st respondent, William Ruto, attained 50.49% of the valid votes cast, meeting the constitutional threshold.
The court rejected the petitioners' argument that rejected ballots should be included in the total votes cast for calculating the 50%+1 threshold, reaffirming its decision in Raila 2013 that rejected votes are not counted. The court also rejected the 6th petitioner's computation based on an uncorrected press briefing by the IEBC Chairperson, accepting IEBC's corrected voter turnout figure of 64.76% and its formula. Applying the formula in Article 138(4), the court found that 7,176,141 votes (Ruto's tally) exceeded 7,106,569 (half of 14,213,137 valid votes plus one), thus confirming the threshold was met.
Whether there were irregularities and illegalities of such magnitude as to affect the final result of the Presidential Election.
The court held that the alleged irregularities and illegalities were not of such magnitude as to affect the final result.
The court examined each allegation—technology failure, staging of Forms 34A, discrepancies between forms, voter suppression from postponed elections, and ballot stuffing—and found that the petitioners failed to provide credible evidence meeting the required standard of proof. The court noted that the Registrar's scrutiny report confirmed the authenticity of the forms and that no security breaches were found. The court emphasized that fraud must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the petitioners' evidence, including affidavits from counsel, was either inadmissible, hearsay, or unsubstantiated.
Legal principles established
#- The power to verify and tally presidential election results vests in the full IEBC Commission, not the chairperson alone.
- Regulation 87(3) giving the chairperson sole tallying authority is unconstitutional.
- Rejected ballot papers are not counted as votes cast for the 50%+1 threshold.
- Data-specific electoral requirements like the 50%+1 threshold must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Internal IEBC dysfunction does not automatically invalidate an election unless it affects the result.
Court orders
#- 1.The Presidential Election Petition No E005 of 2022, as consolidated with Presidential Election Petition Nos E001, E002, E003, E004, E007 & E008 of 2022 is hereby dismissed.
- 2.As a consequence, we declare the election of the 1st respondent as President-elect to be valid under article 140(3) of the Constitution.
- 3.This being a public interest, matter we order that each party shall bear their costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(3)(a) and Article 140 of the Constitution
- Consolidated with
- Presidential Election Petition No E001 of 2022, Presidential Election Petition No E002 of 2022, Presidential Election Petition No E003 of 2022, Presidential Election Petition No E004 of 2022, Presidential Election Petition No E007 of 2022, Presidential Election Petition No E008 of 2022
Relief refused
#Nullification of the Presidential Election of 9th August 2022
The court found that the petitioners failed to prove irregularities and illegalities of such magnitude as to affect the final result, and that the declared President-elect attained the constitutional threshold.
Costs
each party shall bear their costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The Presidential Election Petition No E005 of 2022, as consolidated with Presidential Election Petition Nos E001, E002, E003, E004, E007 & E008 of 2022 is hereby dismissed.
As a consequence, we declare the election of the 1st respondent as President-elect to be valid under article 140(3) of the Constitution.
This being a public interest, matter we order that each party shall bear their costs.
pursuant to article 138(3)(c) of the Constitution, the power to verify and tally Presidential Election results as received at the National Tallying Centre, vests not in the Chairperson of IEBC, but in the Commission itself.
We reiterate that rejected votes cannot be taken into account when calculating whether a Presidential candidate attained 50% +1 of votes cast in accordance with article 138(4) of the Constitution.
In the case of data-specific electoral requirements (such as those specified in article 138(4) of the Constitution, for an outright win in the Presidential election), the party bearing the legal burden of proof must discharge it beyond any reasonable doubt.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt
When challenging specific election data like the 50%+1 threshold, you must present evidence that meets the criminal standard of proof—beyond reasonable doubt. This high bar makes it harder to overturn results based on mathematical or technical errors. Ensure your case is built on verified, admissible evidence, not speculation or hearsay from counsel affidavits.
Election certainty supports business climate
The court's swift dismissal of petitions and affirmation of the result provides political stability, which is crucial for business planning and investment. Companies can rely on the legal framework for election disputes being final and binding. However, note that challenges to regulatory processes (like IEBC's internal operations) may still arise, so stay informed on electoral law reforms.
Your vote counts only if valid
Rejected ballots—those improperly marked or spoiled—do not count toward the total votes cast for determining the winner. This means your vote is only effective if you follow the official voting instructions. Ensure you mark your ballot correctly to avoid it being rejected and not included in the final tally.
Frequently asked questions
#What was the Supreme Court's decision in the 2022 Kenya presidential election petition?+
The Supreme Court dismissed all petitions challenging William Ruto's election, declaring it valid. It found no irregularities that affected the final result and confirmed Ruto met the 50%+1 constitutional threshold.
Can rejected ballots affect the outcome of a Kenyan presidential election?+
No. The Supreme Court ruled that rejected ballots are not counted as votes cast when calculating the 50%+1 threshold. Only valid votes are considered, so spoiled ballots do not change the winner.
Who has the power to tally presidential election results in Kenya?+
The full Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), not just the chairperson. The court found that the chairperson cannot act alone in verifying and tallying results; the entire Commission must oversee the process.
What standard of proof is required to challenge a presidential election result in Kenya?+
For data-specific claims like the 50%+1 threshold, the challenger must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt—the same standard as in criminal cases. This makes it very difficult to overturn an election based on technical errors alone.
Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kenya Ports Authority & another (Suing Through its Registered Trustees) v Akaba Investments Ltd. & 8 others (Environment & Land Case 282 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 4632 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 4632 (KLR)20 Jun 2025
- Muriu & another v Embakasi Ranching Company Limited & another (Environment and Land Appeal E093 of 2021) [2024] KEELC 5383 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 5383 (KLR)18 Jul 2024
- National Assembly v Katiba Institute & 6 others (Civil Appeal 243 of 2018) [2023] KECA 1174 (KLR)[2023] KECA 1174 (KLR)6 Oct 2023
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odinga & 16 others v Ruto & 10 others; Law Society of Kenya & 4 others (Amicus Curiae)", Case Analysis (2022). Presidential Election Petition E005, E001, E002, E003, E004, E007 & E008 of 2022 (Consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2022/54/eng@2022-09-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.