Nakuru Town East Member of Parliament David Gikaria has announced plans to challenge a KSh2.5 million fine and other sanctions imposed by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) over remarks made during campaigns for the Ol Kalou parliamentary by-election.
In a letter dated October 16, 2026, Gikaria’s lawyer, Adrian Kamotho, informed the commission that the legislator intended to appeal the July 14 determination of the Electoral Code of Conduct Enforcement Committee and the subsequent High Court judgment dismissing his challenge.
The lawyer said a notice of appeal would be filed within the prescribed period, alongside an urgent application seeking interim orders to protect Gikaria while the appeal is determined.
ALSO READ
“Our client is exercising an undoubted right of appeal and will seek interim protection from the Court of Appeal,” Kamotho wrote in a letter addressed to the enforcement committee’s secretary, Nancy Koros.
The intended appeal sets the stage for another legal contest over sanctions arising from complaints about Gikaria’s remarks during the July 16 Ol Kalou parliamentary by-election campaign.
On October 8, the High Court in Nairobi dismissed Gikaria’s judicial review application challenging the IEBC committee’s determination.
Justice W. Musyoka found that the application had not met the threshold for the orders sought and discharged temporary orders issued on July 15 that had suspended enforcement of the sanctions. The decision cleared the way for the commission to pursue compliance with its determination.
The committee had ordered Gikaria to pay KSh2.5 million and issue a public apology and retraction over remarks made during the Ol Kalou campaign.
Following the High Court ruling, IEBC Chairperson Erastus Ethekon said enforcement of the Electoral Code of Conduct was central to the commission’s constitutional and statutory mandate to protect electoral integrity.
However, Kamotho argues that the dismissal of the judicial review application did not amount to a separate order compelling his client to pay the fine or apologise.
“With respect, your letter overstates the effect of the judgment,” the lawyer wrote, maintaining that the court had declined to interfere with the administrative decision through judicial review rather than determining every issue raised by the legislator.
Kamotho has questioned the legality of the committee’s determination, arguing that Gikaria was sanctioned under provisions of the Electoral Code of Conduct that were not included in the original charge.
According to the lawyer’s letter, the charge dated July 11 cited paragraphs 6(a) and 6(l) of the code, while the committee found the legislator culpable under paragraphs 6(h) and 6(i).
“A person cannot lawfully be sanctioned on a charge never put to him,” Kamotho argued, citing constitutional protections relating to fair administrative action and the right to a fair hearing.
He said the intended appeal would also challenge what he described as inadequate time to respond to evidence and the interpretation of Gikaria’s remarks in his absence.
These are arguments advanced by the legislator’s lawyer and remain grounds he intends to pursue in the appellate process.
The lawyer also challenged the directive requiring Gikaria to appear at Anniversary Towers at 10am on July 15 to issue a public apology, arguing that the specified date had already passed.
Kamotho said the legislator was on certified medical convalescence between July 13 and 16 and disputed the committee’s ability to revive the expired directive through subsequent correspondence.
The letter further raised concerns about the referral of the matter to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) for investigations into possible election offences.
Kamotho argued that compelling Gikaria to publicly admit wrongdoing could expose him to self-incrimination while the same conduct remained subject to possible criminal proceedings.
The referral for investigation does not, by itself, establish criminal liability.
On the financial penalty, Kamotho maintained that the fine was not presently enforceable, arguing that the Elections Act requires a fine imposed under the code to be registered in the High Court before execution.
He questioned whether the KSh2.5 million penalty had been registered and whether the commission had formally determined the amount for enforcement purposes.
The lawyer said Gikaria was willing, without admitting liability and without prejudice to his intended appeal, to deposit the money in an interest-earning joint account or in court pending the outcome of the case.
He also challenged the committee’s authority to impose further sanctions, including a possible restriction on Gikaria contesting future elections.
According to the letter, the lawyer argues that the code’s application to the Ol Kalou by-election ended when the elected MP was sworn in on July 28 and that any additional sanctions would require a fresh process compliant with constitutional safeguards.
The case arose from complaints about remarks Gikaria made during campaigns for the Ol Kalou parliamentary by-election, including statements concerning cash handouts and the collection of recipients’ national identity card details.
The IEBC committee found that the remarks implied financial inducement of voters and imposed sanctions under the Electoral Code of Conduct. The legislator disputed the interpretation of his statements and challenged the evidence used in the proceedings. <Cite refs={["turn243105search14","turn243105search16"]}/>
In his October 16 letter, Kamotho asked the commission to undertake not to enforce the sanctions pending the appeal and to provide documents showing the legal basis for the fine, its registration in court and the authority for further enforcement measures.
He warned that Gikaria would return to court if enforcement steps were taken before the issues raised in the letter were addressed.
The next stage will depend on the filing of the intended appeal and any interim orders granted by the Court of Appeal. As of the date of the letter, the document communicated an intention to appeal; it did not establish that the appeal had already been filed or that enforcement had been suspended.
