Maxwel Ochieng’ & another v Orange Democratic Movement [2017] eKLR Tribunal. The alleged irregularities included the refusal by the 2nd Respondent to allow for the transportation of ballot boxes and papers, the Returning Officer and 2nd Respondent locked themselves in a room and were later joined by the 2 nd Respondent’s friend to the exclusion of the Claimant, the Returning Officer upon coming out of the room announced the results and declared the 2nd Respondent the winner by garnering 619 votes contrary to the 568 votes the 2nd Respondent got. 3. Consequently, the 1st Respondent’s County Appeals Tribunal made its findings and concluded that the 2nd Respondent refused to allow the transportation of ballot boxes and papers to the tallying centre at Chandaria Primary School. For these reasons, the 1st Respondent’s Appeals Tribunal vide its judgment dated 6th May 2017 allowed the Claimant’s appeal, revoked the 2nd Respondent’s nomination certificate, upheld the Claimant’s nomination and issued him with an interim certificate. 4. Despite its said judgment, the 1 st Respondent went ahead and issued the 2nd Respondent with the final nomination certificate prompting the filing of the complaint herein for the following prayers: a) An order restraining the 1 st Respondent or its servants from submitting the name of the 2nd Respondent to the IEBC as the valid 1 st Respondent’s nominee for the position of the Member of County Assembly, Korogocho Ward, Ruaraka Constituency, Nairobi County. b) An order declaring the Claimant as the valid 1st Respondent’s nominee for the position of the Member of County Assembly, Korogocho Ward, Ruaraka Constituency, Nairobi County. c) A declaration that the award of the nomination certificate to the 2 nd Respondent or any other person, other than the Claimant, as the candidate for Page 2 of 6

Select target paragraph3