OUTA SURVIVES PETITION TO OUST HIM.

0
1317
Nyando Member of Parliament Fred Outa and his supporters outside Supreme court after Supreme Court upheld his election by a popular decision of the judges of the Supreme Court On July 4, 2014.
BY SAM ALFAN.
The Supreme Court has dismissed an election petition lodged by an unsuccessful candidate against Nyando Member of Parliament Fred Outa.

The six-member bench, chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, ruled that Article 163 (4) of the Constitution and Section 21 (4) of the Supreme Court Act do not allow the court to sit on appeal over its own decisions once they have been delivered.

Further, the highest court in the land cannot permit an aggrieved party to re-open a case that has already been heard and determined, Justices Mwilu, Mohamed Ibrahim, Jacton Ojwang, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u and Isaac Lenaola said.

“The stamp of finality with which this court is clothed should not be degraded, except in exceptional circumstances, as determined by the court itself.

Were we to hold otherwise, there would be no end to litigation, thus severely compromising the integrity of the judicial process and the Supreme Court,” they pointed out.

The court flatly rejected an application for review by the Ford-Kenya aspirant, Jared Odoyo Okello, who had claimed that the outcome of the Supreme Court decision was leaked before it was delivered on July 4, 2014.

He had asserted that Outa had publicly boasted about the success of his petition in the Supreme Court, that was chaired by former Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, and alluded to the possibility that the judgment had been released in advance.

The Supreme Court had re-instated the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) politician after his election had been nullified by the Court of Appeal.

 

Odoyo had claimed there was overwhelming evidence that Outa was personally involved in inducing Nyando constituents to vote for him by dishing out Constituency Development Fund (CDF) cheques and that public officers were involved in election irregularities.

He had urged the court to re-open the election petition to advance democracy and pave the way for free, fair and transparent elections.

Lawyer Edwin Mukele, for the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) had argued that the Supreme Court had no power to entertain the review application, which he dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.

The Supreme Court could not overturn its previous decisions except under compelling circumstances, he had said.

LEAVE A REPLY