Supreme Court brings to a stop attempt to dislodge Muhoroni Member of Parliament

The Supreme Court has ended a protracted legal tussle between former Muhoroni MP Ayiecho Olweny and his successor Mathews Onyango K'Oyoo.

The court threw out Prof Olweny's petition that sought to overturn Mr K'Oyoo's win in the 2017 General Election.

2002 to 2013

Olweny, a former Education assistant minister, was the area's MP from 2002 to 2013, when he lost to Mr K'Oyoo.

SEE ALSO :Date on for Iranians and Supreme Court judges in terrorism case

His fight to reclaim the seat started soon after the ODM nominations last year, when K'Oyoo defeated him in the chaotic primaries.

He filed a case in the party's tribunal and lost.

Olweny proceeded to the National Election's Tribunal, which also threw out his case.

Determined to get the party's ticket, he filed a case at the High Court. It ruled in his favour, but his victory was short-lived.

K'Oyoo moved to the Court of Appeal and had the earlier ruling quashed. Dissatisfied, Olweny filed another petition at the Supreme Court that was thrown out last Friday.

SEE ALSO :Judges jail Iranians, take on Ahmednasir

A five-judge Supreme Court bench upheld the judgment of Court of Appeal that threw out Olweny's case.

The ruling by Chief Justice David Maraga, his deputy Philomena Mwilu, Justice Jackton Ojwang', Justice Smokin Wanjala and Justice Njoki Ndung'u slammed brakes on Olweny's bid to stop K'Oyoo from representing Muhoroni Constituency in the National Assembly.

Yesterday, K'Oyoo said he regretted that Olweny had spent a lot of time and resources in pursuing the matter, yet it was clear he had won the party nominations.

Lacked merit

In their ruling read by Justice Ojwang', the judges rejected Olweny's appeal, saying it lacked merit.

SEE ALSO :Let JSC address claims against four Supreme Court judges fully

According to the judges, the main argument advanced by the appellant was that the Court of Appeal judges relied on an impugned judgment and in so doing, infringed on his right to a fair hearing.

"Such an argument, in our view... cannot bring the appeal within the rubric of what is envisaged in Article 163 (4) (a) of the Constitution," they said

For the latest news in entertainment check out and , for everything sports visit and ladies we have you covered on Evewoman

Supreme CourtProf Olweny2017 General Election