Petition Challenging Uhuru's win

THERE SHALL BE A PETITION CHALLENGING THE DECLARATION OF THE PRESIDENT ELECT AS PER ARTICLE 140 OF THE CONSTITUTION
It's almost a certainty that a petition shall be filed challenging the declaration by the IEBC of President Uhuru KENYATTA as the President-elect. Of course such a petition, if any, must be filed within 7 days from today's declaration.
Such a petition shall, in my view, have nothing to do with Article 138 (2) of the Constitution which relates to whether or not elections were carried out in all the 291 constituencies.
The SCORK in the petition is most likely to be called on:
(a) to define and explain the meaning of a "fresh election" under Article 140 (3) of the Constitution and the full effect and or import of a declaration of the same under the said Article.
(b) to define and explain the literal and broader meaning of 'nomination of candidates' under the Elections Act and related regulations.
(c) to define and explain the meaning of withdrawal from a presidential election by a candidate or candidates for an already scheduled election.
(d) to make a determination as to what happens in the case of a withdrawal, absconding and or death of a nominated candidate as per Article 138 (8) of the Constitution.
(e) to make a determination as to whether or not the NASA Presidential Candidate Raila ODINGA properly and or legally withdrew from and or absconded the 26th October 2017 elections.
(f) to interpret the meaning of the requirement under Article 138 (2) that elections shall be held in all the 291 constituencies. This will however hold little or no weight. The IEBC has powers to cancel and or postpone elections in areas in which the same cannot be held for reasons to be documented. In addition, the IEBC can legally and or properly declare the winner without results from one or some constituencies if the result thereof would not change the winner after the final tally.
(g) most importantly, whether or not, if the withdrawal of NASA Presidential candidate was proper but did not effectively cancel the elections, the election was credible, verifiable, free and fair, and in accordance with the Constitution and the existing relevant laws.
As I summarise, the SCORK in the Petition No. 1 of 2017 stated something at paragraph 381 that's worth pondering:
"[381] Noting the prayers sought in this petition, this Court has the mandate, to invalidate a presidential election under Article 140(3) of the Constitution as read with Section 83 of the Elections Act, inter alia, for reasons that there has been non-compliance with the principles in Articles 10, 38, 81 and 86 of the Constitution as well as in the electoral laws. One of the clear reliefs in Article 140(3) is that should a presidential election be invalidated, then a ‘fresh election’ shall be held within 60 days of this Court’s decision in that regard. Parties at the hearing of the petition did not address us on the issue, however, and so we do not deem it fit in this Judgment to delve into an interpretation of that term. We also note that the term ‘fresh election’ was addressed in the 2013 Raila Odinga case and is the subject of an application by the 1st interested party within this petition..."
In conclusion, once again it shall turn around Article 140 of the Constitution as read together with section 83 of the Elections Act and this time in addition to Article 138 (8) of the Constitution.
Food for thought.