Wa Muthende asks court to reject queries on his name change

He accuses Mr Kariuki of attempting to reopen nomination disputes through an election petition long after voters cast their ballots. He urges the judge to uphold his election and find that the court lacks jurisdiction to interrogate such claims after the election has been concluded.

The case relates to the November 27, 2025, Mbeere North by-election conducted by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) following a vacancy declared earlier that year. This was after the then-MP Geoffrey Ruku joined the Executive as Cabinet Secretary for Public Service.

The IEBC gazetted the poll in August and issued timelines for nominations, campaigns, and voting.

Mr Wa Muthende, running on a United Democratic Alliance ticket, was cleared to contest and later declared the winner with 15,802 votes, while Mr Kariuki of the Democratic Party garnered 15,308 votes. He was gazetted on December 1 and sworn in the following day at the National Assembly.

Already, Justice Richard Mwongo has ordered that all the election materials used in the Mbeere North Parliamentary by-election be deposited in the Embu High Court premises until election petitions filed in court are heard and determined.

He said the materials should be kept in court for safe custody.

Justice Mwongo explained that security will be provided ensure safe transportation of the ballot boxes and other election materials to the court.

Already a loser in the Mbeere North Parliamentary by-election Newton Kariuki has filed a petition in Embu High Court seeking to have the election of his political rival Leo Wa Muthende Njeru nullified.

A pre-trial of the petitions presided over by Justice Richard Mwongo kicked off in the Court on Thursday.

Mr Kariuki’s petition challenges almost every aspect of the process but places particular focus on Mr Wa Muthende’s change of name shortly before the by-election.

Lawful change 

He argues that discrepancies between the name appearing in the voter register (Leonard Muriuki Njeru) and that on ballot papers (Leo Wa Muthende Njeru) rendered the nomination and election unlawful.

However, Mr Wa Muthende rejects that claim outright. His lawyer, Adrian Kamotho Njenga, says the MP lawfully changed his name in September 2025 through a deed poll that was duly gazetted while retaining the same national identity number.

The lawyer explains that the register of voters had already closed by the time the name change was effected, making alterations impossible under the law.

“The appearance of his former name in the register of voters was lawful, unavoidable, and did not prejudice any candidate or voter,” Mr Njenga states. He adds that the law expressly provides that minor misnomers do not invalidate electoral documents where the individual is clearly identifiable.

Mr Wa Muthende insists that the petitioner should “keep off” his identity, saying the issue was conclusively dealt with during clearance by the IEBC.

In the court papers, lawyer Njenga says his client presented all documents to the IEBC supporting the name change, was biometrically identified through the KIEMS kit, and was cleared because he met the moral, academic, and legal thresholds to vie for office.

According to his filings, voters could easily identify Mr Wa Muthende on the ballot through his photograph, name, and party symbol. 

“The discrepancy did not in any way affect the validity of the election or the declaration of results,” lawyer Njenga argues.

Beyond the identity dispute, Mr Wa Muthende accuses Mr Kariuki of disguising pre-election grievances as post-election complaints.

He argues that disputes concerning nomination, party sponsorship, and candidate clearance should have been raised before the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal or the IEBC dispute mechanisms, not through an election petition.

“The petitioner’s gravamen relates to or arises from the fourth respondent’s (Wa Muthende) nomination and registration as a candidate, which is a pre-election dispute,” lawyer Njenga states, adding that the High Court has no original jurisdiction to determine such matters after the election has been held.

The lawyer also dismisses allegations of bribery, violence, voter intimidation, exclusion of agents, and manipulation of results, saying none were supported by evidence.

He notes that Mr Kariuki failed to annex police reports, affidavits, or polling station-specific proof to back the claims.

Regarding the request for scrutiny and recounts, lawyer Njenga argues that scrutiny is not automatic and can only be ordered where sufficient reason is demonstrated. 

Mr Njenga says the petitioner neither pleaded specific disputed polling stations nor showed how alleged irregularities affected the final tally.

He maintains that the voting, counting, and tallying were conducted in strict compliance with the Constitution and election laws and that the outcome reflected the will of the people of Mbeere North.

“My declaration was informed by and consistent with the votes cast,” says Mr Wa Muthende, arguing that the court case is built on pre-election disputes and unproven allegations that did not affect the poll outcome.

He now wants the court to dismiss the petition with costs, warning that allowing identity-based nomination disputes to be reopened after elections would undermine certainty and stability in Kenya’s electoral system.

The High Court is expected to determine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the grievances and whether the petition meets the legal threshold to upset a completed by-election.

The case is scheduled to return to court on February 12, 2026, for a ruling on various applications filed by the parties.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.

[email protected]

[email protected]