The High Court of Kenya has made a significant ruling on the national tallying and verification of presidential election results. On September 22, 2026, Justice Gregory Mutai delivered a judgment that rejected a constitutional challenge seeking to strip the IEBC of its power to verify constituency results before declaring a president-elect. The petitioner, Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, had argued that the national-level verification of presidential results was unconstitutional.
The court's ruling settles a major legal question over how presidential results will be processed ahead of the 2027 General Election. The debate had centered on the role of the National Tallying Centre, historically located at Bomas of Kenya. Senator Omtatah's petition challenged Section 39 of the Elections Act and Regulation 83(2) of the Elections (General) Regulations, provisions governing the transmission and tallying of presidential election results at different levels.
Justice Mutai's ruling drew an important distinction between verification and alteration of results. While the IEBC must verify and aggregate the results nationally, it cannot use that process to change figures already declared and certified at the constituency level. The court described tallying as the arithmetic aggregation of constituency figures into county and national totals, while verification involves checking whether those aggregated figures correspond with the results declared and certified at constituency level.
The court preserved the national tallying framework while affirming the finality of results already declared and certified by constituency returning officers. The judge held that the IEBC cannot use verification as an opportunity to “add, subtract, multiply, divide, cancel or otherwise revise any individual constituency figures.” The ruling allows the IEBC to continue with national tallying and verification, ensuring the integrity of the electoral process.
The court also directed that certified Forms 34A and 34B, or their successors, displayed at constituency tallying centres should serve as the primary reference documents during national aggregation. National verification must be undertaken collectively by the IEBC, with all commissioners participating and having access to the underlying data. Candidates' agents and observers should have real-time access to the same data available to the commission during the national tallying and verification exercise.
The ruling addresses possible differences between electronically transmitted results and physical records. Where discrepancies occur, the IEBC must document the difference, explain how it was resolved, and make that record public by the time the final presidential result is declared. This ensures transparency and accountability in the electoral process.
The legal controversy follows previous presidential election disputes over transmission, tallying, and verification of results. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence has recognised a role for IEBC in verifying presidential results at the national level. The debate became prominent after the 2017 presidential election, when the Supreme Court nullified the election and ordered a fresh poll. The court's ruling provides clarity on the IEBC's role in the electoral process ahead of the 2027 General Election.
Key points
- The High Court has ruled that the IEBC is constitutionally required to tally and verify presidential results at the national level.
- The court drew a distinction between verification and alteration of results, ensuring that the IEBC cannot change figures already declared and certified at the constituency level.
- The ruling provides clarity on the IEBC's role in the electoral process ahead of the 2027 General Election.
