Kenya court overturns election result

Kenya's parliament sits for the first time since controversial election

"For the first time in the history of African democratisation, a ruling has been made by a court nullifying the irregular election of a president".

"The declaration [of Kenyatta's win] is invalid, null and void", Judge David Maranga said of the latest election.

Kenya's supreme court has nullified Uhuru Kenyatta's win in the presidential election last month and ordered a new vote within 60 days. On Thursday, Kenyatta's ruling Jubilee party said they would use their majority in the legislature to push through more projects. "With the possibility of the new election going to a second round and the result being contested again, political uncertainty could easily last the rest of the year", she said in a research note. "That is the nature of democracy". "They have stolen the election for long", said fishmonger Lynette Akello.

Other elections in Africa have been annulled or cancelled but this appears to be the first time on the continent that an opposition court challenge against a presidential poll result has been successful.

The run up to the vote was marked by court challenges over voting procedures and fears over the effectiveness and credibility of the IEBC, whose management was only appointed in January.

Commenting on this on Joy FM's Midday News, Mr Lardy Anyenini said Kenya's constitution has progressive provisions which formed the basis for the decision.

The run-up to the August 8 election was marred by the murder of top IEBC IT official Chris Msando and opposition allegations that rigging was certain.

Kenya had been braced for further protests as the court prepared to rule, with police deployed to sensitive areas of the capital, Nairobi, and streets near the court were barricaded. "Let us go back to the people, and let them decide", Mr Kenyatta said.

He said this had compromised the "integrity of the entire presidential election".

Kenyatta's lead counsel, Ahmednassir Abdulahi said in court that his client wanted to see the full judgment to understand how the alleged irregularities would "obliterate" his 1.4 million vote winning margin.

"We were satisfied that the election was not conducted as the constitution dictates", reads part of the much-awaited ruling where the four justices who ruled in favour of the petition made no attempts to offer an explanation for their decision.

Related news: