NAIROBI, Kenya May 21 – Democratic Party Candidate in the last November’s Mbeere North Parliamentary by-election has moved to the court of appeal to challenge the declaration of UDA’s Leo Wa Muthende as victor.Through a notice filed at the Embu Law Courts Registry, Newton Kariuki’s lawyer Ndegwa Njuri says they are appealing a judgment delivered by the High Court of Kenya at Embu on May 21, 2026, and intends to challenge that decision in the Court of Appeal.“Take notice that the Petitioner, being dissatisfied with the Judgement of the Honourable Justice Richard Mwongo delivered at Embu High Court (The Election Court) on 21 May 2026, intends to appeal to the Court of Appeal (The Election court) against the whole Judgement,” he said.Justice Richard Mwongo of the High Court in Embu dismissed the petition after he found that the Kariuki failed to prove that the irregularities cited substantially affected the outcome of the poll.The court upheld Wa Muthende’s election despite blatant irregularities.Mwongo said he was not convinced that it was impossible to determine which candidate benefited from the assisted votes and concluded that the violations did not ultimately affect the will of the electorate.Ndwiga had sought to nullify the election, arguing that the poll was marred by violence, failures in election technology, irregular handling of election materials and procedural breaches that allegedly undermined the integrity of the process.He revealed that Regulation 72 of the Elections (General) Regulations had been violated after it was established that 1,072 assisted voters whose details were not recorded in the physical register as required by law.However, the court found that while some incidents and procedural lapses had been established, they were not widespread or substantial enough to affect the outcome of the election.On allegations of irregular appointment and dismissal of election officials, the judge held that the petitioner failed to identify the affected IEBC officers, the alleged unlawful actions, or the specific legal provisions said to have been breached.“The Court found that the evidence of the petitioner did not list the IEBC officers in issue, did not identify which of the officers were opaquely or irregularly appointed and or deployed or dismissed, and did not specify which provisions of any law were violated,” the judgment states.Claims that voters had been disenfranchised due to failure to deploy printed voter registers were also dismissed.The court found that every polling station had a physical voter register available, although sealed in plastic envelopes, and noted that no evidence had been presented showing that any voter was denied the right to vote.“The case law on use of physical registers is that such register is only to be used in instances where biometric or alphanumeric identification fails. There was no evidence of such failure of identification,” the court said.Justice Mwongo further examined claims of interference with voter registration data and acknowledged that one case of unlawful alteration of the voters’ register had been established after the register freeze period.Even so, the court ruled that the incident involved only one individual and was not shown to be widespread, intentional or capable of altering the will of the electorate.“It was not proved that the admitted interference with the register was either widespread, systemic or intended. In substance there was no proof of the fact that the sole instance of interference with the register affected the will of the people,” the court ruled.The petition also cited violence and intimidation during polling day, particularly at Gitiburi and Kaungu polling stations.The court confirmed that violence occurred at the two stations, with Kaungu recording the more serious incidents. It further noted that voter turnout at Kaungu dropped after the disturbances, theoretically translating to about 51 voters or roughly eight per cent below the constituency average.Taken as a whole, the court was not able to find that such violence was widespread, systematic or pervasive within the electoral area, or that the proved violence substantially affected the overall result of the elections,” Justice Mwongo held.Despite this, the judge held that the violence was not systematic, pervasive or extensive enough across the constituency to substantially influence the final result.The court similarly addressed allegations of bribery and undue influence, finding that evidence from two witnesses pointed to possible electoral bribery.Justice Mwongo observed that an electoral malpractice of a criminal nature may have occurred under Section 87 of the Elections Act. However, the court concluded there was insufficient proof linking the alleged misconduct to the final outcome of the election.“Court found there was bribery on evidence of two witnesses, and determined that an electoral malpractice of a criminal nature may have occurred,” the ruling said, adding, however, that “there was no evidence that the scope and prevalence of the malpractice substantially affected the result of the election.”Out of 134 polling stations, there was broken chain of custody, possible unlawful handling of voting material but no violation of poll closing procedure at Gitiburi 1 and 2 polling stations,” the court said, adding that there was “no basis for a finding that the irregularities or non-compliance were substantial, pervasive or widespread, or affected the election outcome.”Although the petition was dismissed, the judgment flagged several electoral malpractices for further investigation.The court directed that a report be forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) over suspected offences, including unlawful alteration of the voters’ register, improper handling of assisted voters and failure by election officials to properly record assisted voting as required by law.“The court finds that the following were malpractices of a criminal nature and directs that the same be transmitted to the DPP,” the ruling states, citing “admitted alteration of register without authority,” “double assistance of voters,” and “failure to record in the polling station register against the name of the voter the fact that the voter was assisted.”Justice Mwongo noted that scrutiny had uncovered violations involving assisted voters, including six individuals who assisted more than one voter each, contrary to electoral regulations. However, the court said those issues could not be relied upon in determining the petition because they had not been pleaded in the original case.