Court Upholds Ndakwa’s Malava Victory as Panyako Petition Fails, Judge Says Evidence Not Sufficient to Nullify Results

The High Court in Kakamega has upheld the election of David Ndakwa as the duly elected Member of Parliament for Malava Constituency, dismissing an election petition filed by his closest challenger Seth Panyako of the Democratic Action Party of Kenya (DAP-K).

Delivering the ruling on Friday, Justice Stephen Mbugi found that the petition did not meet the legal threshold required to overturn the outcome of the election, stating that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant nullification.

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission) had declared Ndakwa the winner of the November 28, 2025 by-election after he garnered 21,564 votes against Panyako’s 20,210 votes.

Wilberforce India of the Kenya Moja Party came in third with 629 votes in the tightly contested race.

The by-election, conducted across 198 polling stations, recorded a voter turnout of 46 percent, with 43,675 voters casting their ballots from a registered voter population of 94,412.

In his petition, Panyako claimed he had won in 134 polling stations and alleged irregularities in at least 54 stations. He also accused unnamed actors of instigating chaos during the electoral process.

The opposition had earlier called for a vote recount in disputed polling stations before the final declaration of results, citing concerns over the credibility of the process.

However, Justice Mbugi ruled that the petitioners failed to provide adequate qualitative and quantitative evidence to demonstrate that the alleged irregularities materially affected the final outcome.

He consequently affirmed Ndakwa as the legitimate Member of Parliament for Malava Constituency.

Following the ruling, Panyako expressed disappointment, saying he was not convinced by the court’s decision and maintained that the legal process had not fully addressed his concerns.

The decision brings closure—at least at the High Court level—to the contested by-election, although the aggrieved party has hinted at the possibility of pursuing further legal action.