The High Court in Mombasa has barred two Mombasa residents from being enjoined in a petition filed by former Nairobi Governor Mike Sonko against IEBC.
Sonko is appealing the decision of the IEBC Disputes Resolutions Committee, which disqualified him from running for governor of Mombasa County.
Mukithi D and Anderson Warui, the two applicants, had sought to be enjoined in the case, claiming that they wanted to participate in the petition due to the public interest of the case.
The two had argued that the ex-governor is ineligible to run for governor because he was impeached and found guilty of gross violations of the constitution.
The petition was dismissed by a three-judge bench of Justices Olga Sewe, Ann Ong’injo, and Stephen Githinji, who said it did not meet any requirements to guarantee the request.
“It was clear to us that their interest is unrelated to the case. They have demonstrated that they have no personal stake in the case and are only interested in championing public interest “Sewe stated.
The bench also stated that the duo’s public interest was insufficient to enjoin them in the case.
“The applicants have no demonstrable expertise that can help determine the outcome of the case, and if their application is denied, they will suffer no prejudice. The application is denied “The bench ruled.
Simultaneously, Sonko’s legal team, led by Wilfred Nyamu, requested permission from the court to file additional affidavits and submissions on Wednesday before the hearing could begin.
“We are requesting permission to file a supplementary affidavit as well as a video file by tomorrow 11 a.m.,” Nyamu told the court.
However, IEBC counsel Edwin Mukele stated that they were willing to continue with the case as is, even with oral submissions, and without additional affidavits from the Sonko.
“This is an extremely urgent matter, especially in the eyes of the IEBC.” “Because of the conservatory orders, they will face extreme difficulties in printing and delivering the papers,” we received communication from the company printing the ballot papers in Greece. “Printing ballot papers entails logistics,” Mukele contended.
Furthermore, Mukele stated that, despite the fact that the IEBC DRC had seen the videos that Sonko’s lawyers wanted to submit, he had yet to be served with them.
Mukele suggested that the case be continued on Tuesday afternoon and that IEBC might challenge the conservatory orders issued by the court on Monday.
“We intend to file an application for a certificate of urgency to stay and even review the orders issued yesterday (Monday),” he said.
“The orders issued yesterday put the elections in jeopardy.” The Constitution only has one day. I wish we could keep going today.”
Another member of Sonko’s legal team, Eunice Lumallas, dismissed Mukele’s claims that the case could jeopardize the August 9 elections.
“The written submissions are acceptable. We are in Mombasa and have no plans to leave. We can resume working on the case tomorrow at 1 p.m., “She stated.
Lumallas accused the IEBC legal team of attempting to intimidate the court into ruling in their favor by using the election calendar.
She cited the case filed by the National Super Alliance (NASA) against the IEBC in 2017.
“In this case, a ruling was issued in July that canceled the entire tender process, forcing IEBC to restart the tendering process. We cannot sacrifice democracy for the sake of expediency “She stated.
Dr. John Khaminwa, another lawyer representing Sonko, urged the IEBC and the EACC to follow the court’s orders regardless of the consequences.
“Our responsibility is to carry out the orders you issued yesterday. There is a legal system. Commercial interests cannot be used to undermine the rule of law “Khaminwa explained.
“IEBC should have expected such rulings because they have been involved in this case since its inception.”
Mike Sonko must file the supplementary affidavits by 9 a.m. on Wednesday, according to the judges.
The bench also ordered that all respondents in the case file their affidavits by 11 a.m. on Wednesday.
The case will be heard on Wednesday at noon, and each party will have 30 minutes to present their arguments.
The court set a page limit of 10 for written submissions.
The case is expected to be decided on Tuesday, December 12.
