Homabay County Senatorial aspirant Shem Ochuodho has filed an application seeking the Judicial Review court to reconsider its decision on the grounds that the Honorable Court overlooked some key points in his previous application.
In the application, Ochuodho has questioned why the County Returning Officer (CRO) has not filed any Supporting Affidavit sworn under oath nor appeared at any point before court despite the numerous foregoing court sessions.
He also claims that he has consistently stated that he was misinformed in his several affidavits, a fact that IEBC has not contested in any replying affidavit.
Ochuodho says that the grounds of dismissal by IEBC were that there are many banks other than the KCB in Homa Bay where he would have procured a bankers cheque, and that he Went before the IEBC out of time.
According to Ochuodho, the Tribunal completely ignored the fact that the he invoked the process in time, save for the banker’s cheque and on returning around 5.30pm, the CRO had already closed.
Ochuodho contests that the CRO he could have still completed the process like several other candidates in Homa Bay and elsewhere did.
“The Tribunal did not bother to know from me that by the time they were sent to get a banker’s cheque, essentially all the banks had closed, and were just lucky to be allowed into KCB after time,” Ochuodho said.
The aspirants says that in the submissions, the CRO claimed ‘there were other candidates who presented bankers cheques’, but never tabled before the Tribunal evidence of a banker’s cheque issued by KCB Homa Bay Branch dated 29th May, 2017.
“I had been informed by the Branch that on the material date their banker’s cheque machine was notworking, hence prompting us to resort to Rongo Town KCB Branch to have the cheque processed way out of time,” Ochuodho noted.
He added that the CRO therefore failed to disapprove the Applicant’s claim that KCB Homa Bay wasn’t issuing bankers cheques on the material day.
Ochuodho questioned whether it would have mattered if the County Returning Officer had misinformed him.
He further added that during appearance before IEBC Tribunal, The CRO talked of giving a ‘Checklist’ which he has never tabled to be scrutinized adding that the court just assumed the issue adding that he never received any Checklist from his Representative.
The aspirant added that the court should have taken into consideration the fact that the CRO did not deny that he informed his Representatives to return on 30th May at 7am with the banker’s cheque.
According to him, during the Judicial Review hearing, IEBC Lawyer confirmed that ‘that he invoked the process in time was not in contention’. However, before the he filed a formal complaint to IEBC Chair, the CRO had verbally claimed ‘he saw several people on May 29th, and couldn’t confirm or deny if his Representative was one of them’.
He added that the IEBC Managers at the HQ had informed him that had the CRO in the first instance confirmed or accepted that we commenced the process in time, he would long have been allowed by the HQ to present papers without even the need to initiate the ensuing legal action.
“What effect does this acceptance/confession by the IEBC lawyer (which unfortunately even the Court proceeding did not capture innits record) have?” Ochuodho added.
The aspirant further noted that an IEBC Official at the HQ informed him that if necessary, the IEBC Office in Homa Bay should have remained opened until mid-night to complete the
processes.
Ochuodho therefore questioned why the CRO not available by 5.30pm/4.30pm to receive his documents.
“There was evidence adduced before court that my Representative had received the cheque in question by 5.30pm, but the CRO insisted on closing at 4pm,” he added.
Ochudho noted that the CRO claimed in an informal conversation the lawyer that he
declined to my papers on May 30th apparently because my Representatives were ‘rude to him’ which turned out to be false.
“We gather that another Aspirant was rude to him but why should I suffer because of something not my fault my fault nor my representative’s?” Ochuodho questioned.
He further questioned why the CRO should have so much latitude of discretion that whether he
accepts or rejects documents depends on the whims of his moods.
