Historic Judgment: Kenya’s Presidential Election Declared Null and Void and Fresh Election Ordered

by | Sep 2, 2017

author profile picture

About Victoria Miyandazi

Victoria Miyandazi is a Knight Fellow in Legal and Constitutional Research at the University of St Andrews Institute of Legal and Constitutional Research. She was recently appointed as an inaugural member of the UK Young Academy (2023-2028). Previously, she was a Lecturer at University of Embu, Editor and Researcher at the Oxford Human Rights Hub, and Legal Researcher at the Kenyan Judiciary Committee on Elections. She is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and practised law at Okubasu, Munene & Kazungu Advocates LLP. She completed her DPhil in Law at the University of Oxford in 2019 and has been a member of the Oxford Human Rights Hub team since 2014.


Victoria Miyandazi, “Historic Judgment: Kenya’s Presidential Election Declared Null and Void and Fresh Election Ordered” (OxHRH Blog, 2 September 2017) <https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/historic-judgment-kenyas-presidential-election-declared-null-and-void-and-fresh-election-ordered/> [Date of Access]

In an unprecedented turn of events, the Supreme Court of Kenya yesterday, in a 4-2 majority opinion, declared that the 2017 Presidential Election was not conducted in accordance with, inter alia, Articles 10, 38, 81 and 86 of the Kenyan Constitution as well as sections 39(1C), 44A and 83 of the Elections Act. The Chief Justice, David Maraga, read the majority opinion (by Maraga CJ & Mwilu DCJ & Wanjala and Lenaola SCJJ)—with Njoki Ndung’u and Ojwang SCJJ dissenting—without a full judgment because of the strict timelines, 14 days to hear and determine the petition. The full reasoned judgment will be given within 21 days of the decision, as required under Rule 23(1) of the Supreme Court (Presidential Elections) Rules 2017.

The issues for determination as set out by the Court were:

  1. Whether the 2017 Presidential election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution and the law relating to elections;
  2. Whether there were irregularities and illegalities committed in the conduct of the 2017 presidential election;
  3. If there were irregularities and illegalities, what was their impact, if any, on the integrity of the election; and
  4. What consequential orders, declarations and reliefs should the Court grant, if any.


Having had a 14-day limit to hear and determine the Presidential Election Petition, hearings mostly ran until late in the night, with the judges being left with two days to deliberate before handing their decision. The majority decision of the Court, was that first, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) failed to conduct the Presidential Election in a manner consistent with the dictates of the Constitution and the Elections Act. Second, that among other irregularities, the IEBC did not conduct the transmission of election results in a credible manner, particulars of which will be laid out in the full judgment. Third and lastly, the Court found that the illegalities and irregularities committed by the IEBC affected the integrity of the Presidential Election and thus ordered fresh elections to be conducted. It, however, found no evidence of misconduct on the part of the incumbent, Uhuru Kenyatta. Fresh Presidential elections are thus to be conducted within 60 days of the decision.

This decision has so far received mixed reactions with some hailing it as a win for the rule of law while others have criticised it as a judicial subversion of the will of the majority. Notably though, both the opposition and the incumbent, President Kenyatta, have accepted the decision and indicated that they will do as the Court said, even though the latter says he disagrees with the Court’s decision. Contrasting this 2017 decision with the 2013 Presidential Election Petition judgment, in the latter decision, despite the Supreme Court noting that there were many irregularities in the conduct of the election, it however held that ‘these were not substantial as to affect the credibility of the electoral process’ (see para [237] and [256]). This left open the question of what the threshold for nullifying an election is.  We await to read the full judgment but, based on the Supreme Court majority’s determination, it can be concluded that the Court’s reasoning will provide more guidance on what the threshold for nullifying an election is, which would be a bold step for the Court. And, hopefully, the full judgment will be profound in closing pending questions on what the threshold for nullifying an election is. One would have expected a reluctance to nullify the Presidential election for the sake of peace, given the 2007/2008 post-election violence in Kenya, which arose mainly after the announcement of presidential election results allegedly marred by irregularities. On the other hand, of course, it could similarly be argued that reluctance to nullify would also have led to violence. The determination of the Court thus goes to show that the quest for peace is illusionary without justice.

Even as many consider the Supreme Court’s decision, questions remain pending on the weight that should be placed on reports by election observers. This is in noting the divergence of opinion between international and regional observers who concluded that the 2017 elections were free, fair and credible (cited in the dissenting opinions) and statements by some Kenyan civil society organisations that there were election irregularities.

Share this:

Related Content


  1. Stefano Maroa

    Full judgement is what am waiting for. Quick question ; So if nobody attains 51% in the re run would we have to do another election

    • Victoria Miyandazi

      The elections to be done within 60 days are fresh presidential elections and not a re-run. The most important point to remember is as noted under the Citizen’s Handbook 2012… ‘An absolute majority formula means that a candidate must receive at least 50 per cent plus 1 vote of the total valid votes to win the election. If there is no winner by absolute majority, then there is usually a second round of fresh voting, also known as a ‘run-off,’ which occurs between top two candidates of the first election. In the run-off election, a candidate does not need an absolute majority to be the winner. Instead, the winner of the run-off election is the candidate that receives the most votes.’ See more at http://www.juakatiba.com/home/publication?t_id=91#.WaqhwzOZM_U

  2. Joas Kamudulunge Neemwatya

    Very historic judgment for Kenya and the whole of Africa. Reminds me of the 2004 Ukrainian Supreme Court decision. The applicant went to win the election on re-run. One can only wait and see how events will turn out. However, one may wonders if this will cost Kenyatta some of his supporters.

  3. Dominic Burbidge

    Thanks Victoria – good piece

Submit a Comment