• Wanjigi had sought the Tribunal's attention in seeking to overturn the decision by commission chairman Wafula Chebukati not to clear him to vie.
• Wanjigi has, however, vowed to appeal the decision in the High court.
Image: FILE
Hopes of businessman Jimi Wanjigi contesting for the presidency were on Friday night deemed after IEBC Disputes Tribunal upheld an earlier decision.
Wanjigi had sought the Tribunal's attention in seeking to overturn the decision by commission chairman Wafula Chebukati not to clear him to vie for the country's top seat.
In upholding it, George Murugu who chaired the panel that heard the case said Chebukati was justified since the candidate failed to submit the prerequisites for registration.
Wanjigi has, however, vowed to appeal the decision in the High court.
He said they made the application at the tribunal as it was a requirement by the law while hoping to get justice because it would have been premature for them to file a case at the high court.
"We came to this committee thinking we are going to get justice but it is clear it has decided to go the Chebukati way in misinterpretation of the law," Wanjigi's lawyer Willis Otieno said.
"It is not a competent committee to explain to the High court what the law is... it recognises the authority of the High court but then purports to explain what its decisions are and we are not even surprised by the ruling since the chair of the committee chair is a personal lawyer of Chebukati," Otieno added as he stormed out of the courtroom on Friday night.
Murugu, in his ruling said Wanjigi did not submit sufficient number of supporters as required by the law and a degree certificate as provided for in section 22(2) as read together with regulation 47(1) of the Elections general regulations Act 2012.
"The candidate did not submit the nomination certificate in respect of the running mate...the returning officer was justified in rejecting the complaint as it lacks merit," he stated.
The tribunal ruled that Wanjigi fell short of one county in submission of signatures and ID copies from one county.
The businessman’s lawyer further applied to be furnished with certified copies of the proceedings.
"If at all the amendments to section 22(2) were ever made we wish the proceedings to capture it and where exactly was amended to help us in the next phase," Otieno said, noting the panel was applying mechanical pedantic, pedestrian way to interpret the law.
In the hearings, he argued that there was no mention of any late submission outside the gazetted time but was captured in submission of the running mate certificate "so we also want it captured".