The much-anticipated judgement on the 2022 Presidential petition was rendered by a seven-judge-bench led by Chief Justice Martha Koome on September 5 in which they upheld the election victory of President-elect William Ruto.
Unlike, her predecessor Emeritus David Maraga, Lady Justice Koome borrowed heavily from former CJ Willy Mutunga in delivering the verdict.
Not only did the two separate benches (Koome and Mutunga) uphold the election of the president-elect, but also gave a unanimous decision.
Here are comparisons and differences in the Supreme Court verdicts since 2013;
2022 Presidential Petition
In the 2022 petition, the verdict of the presidential petition was determined by a seven-judge bench comprising Koome, Deputy Chief Justice Philomena Mwilu, Justices Njoki Ndung'u, Smoking Wanjala, Mohamed Ibrahim, William Ouko and Isaac Lenaola.
Unlike previous years, the 2022 elections saw nine petitions filed before the apex court. Two of the petitions were thrown out before the commencement of the petitions while the remaining seven were consolidated into one - with Raila Odinga as the main petitioner.
In particular, the petitioners challenged the elections technology used with the allegations of rigging in favour of Ruto.
Similarly to the 2013 presidential ruling, CJ Koome read a unanimous verdict throwing out the petitions over failure by the petitioners to provide enough proof to the court.
Additionally, unlike the 2017 Maranga-led bench, the seven-judge bench gave a summary of their ruling with the detailed judgement set to be issued in the coming weeks.
2017 Presidential Petition
The 2017 judgement saw the apex court make history in the country and in the continent by overturning the election of President Uhuru Kenyatta.
At the time, the bench comprised seven judges. Nonetheless, Justice Ibrahim did not take part in the final verdict. The six who were present were, Maraga, Mwilu, Wanjala, Lenaola, Ndung'u and Jakton Ojwang'..
During the September 1, 2017 verdict, Maraga read the full judgement and verdict of the court that had been endorsed by 4 judges.
However, before reading the unanimous decision he gave 2 dissenting judges - Justice Ndung'u and Ojwang' an opportunity to read their dissenting verdict.
Unlike the other presidential petitions under the 2010 Constitution of Kenya, there was only one petition filed at the Apex court. The petition was filed by Raila and his then-running mate Kalonzo Musyoka.
In his petition, Raila had asked the court to overturn Uhuru's win claiming that the election was not conducted in accordance with the law. Consequently, the court ruled in Raila's favour.
"Upon considering inter alia Articles 10, 38, 81 and 86 of the Constitution as well as, Sections 39(1C), 44, 44A and 83 of the Elections Act, the decision of the court is that the IEBC failed, neglected or refused to conduct the Presidential Election in a manner consistent with the dictates of the Constitution and inter alia the Elections Act, Chapter 7 of the Laws of Kenya," read the unanimous Supreme Court verdict.
2013 Presidential Petition
The 2013 petition was the first petition filed before the Supreme Court, which was operationalised in 2011. It was also the first petition to be filed under the current constitutional dispensation.
Former CJ Dr Mutunga led a team of six judges in upholding the win of President Kenyatta. At the time, other than, Mutunga, the bench was comprised of Justices Ibrahim, Wanjala, Ndung'u, Ojwang' and Philip Tunoi.
Similar to Koome's led bench, the court gave a unanimous summary of the judgement.
Notably, in 2013, there were three petitions filed before the court; the first petition was filed by Raila, and the second petition was filed by Moses Kuria, Dennis Itumbi and the third by Florence Jematiah Sergon.
At the heart of the main petition by Raila was the use of technology deployed by the electoral commission, which was allegedly manipulated in favour of Uhuru. However, the court ruled that Raila and his team failed to provide enough evidence to prove their case.
"In summary, the evidence, in our opinion, does not disclose any profound irregularity in the management of the electoral process, nor does it gravely impeach the mode of participation in the electoral process by any of the candidates who offered himself or herself before the voting public.
"It is not evident, on the facts of this case, that the candidate declared as the President-elect had not obtained the basic vote threshold justifying his being declared as such," the court ruled then.
