The Supreme Court on Monday, September 5, upheld the victory of president-elect William Ruto in the August 9 poll.
The much-awaited ruling was not without its intrigues owing to the phrases and jargon used by the seven-judge bench in delivering its judgment.
Some of the terms used by Chief Justice Martha Koome in delivering the ruling trended for the better part of the day, with Kenyans reacting to the phrases used in dismissing the petition.
Some of these terms include:
Outright forgeries
The seven-judge bench concluded that some of the logs produced as evidence in the presidential election petition were not admissible in court.
"A review of some of the logs produced as evidence of staging shows that they were either from the 2017 Presidential election or they were outright forgeries."
Hot air & Wild Goose Chase
The Azimio legal team had argued that Venezuelan national, Jose Carmago, had aided in interfering with the IEBC servers in Ruto's favour.
Led by lawyer Julie Soweto, the team displayed a PowerPoint presentation of a Form 34A that bore the name Jose Camargo on the IEBC public portal.
On this allegation, the Supreme Court termed the allegations as hot air that led them to a baseless claim.
"This turned out to be no more than hot air and a wild goose chase. It was admitted by IEBC as a manufacturer's error," read part of the judgment.
Red herring
Red Herring refers to a clue or piece of information which is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.
Regarding the petition that questioned the postponement of the Mombasa and Kakamega elections by the IEBC, Supreme Court ruled that the IEBC's actions were not conducted in bad faith and did not lead to voter suppression to the detriment of Raila Odinga.
"IEBC had the requisite powers to postpone elections in Mombasa, Kakamega and other electoral units. IEBC also did not do it in bad faith and postponement did not give any candidate an added advantage. This claim was another red herring."
Not a single piece of evidence
On whether there were discrepancies between votes casts for presidential candidates and other elective positions, the Supreme Court ruled that 'not a single evidence was provided to show ballot staffing and hence dismissed the issue.
Unproven hypothesis
The apex court also ruled that the Azimio legal team failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove allegations of fraud in the presidential votes cast.
"He who alleges fraud must show proof. Allegations of ballot stuffing were only unproven hypotheses. Fraud is a serious offence and must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
Double Hearsay
The Supreme Court further dismissed the affidavits filed by Celestine Opondo and Arnold Odinga, noting that the allegations amounted to information that could not be substantiated.
"No admissible evidence was presented to prove the allegation that forms 34A were fraudulently altered by a group situated in Karen under the directions of persons named in the affidavit. As a matter of fact, these 2 affidavits amount to double hearsay," the Supreme Court ruled.
