Uhuru's sister denies Sonko’s influence claims in court case

 

President Uhuru Kenyatta's sister, Ms Christina Pratt, has denied claims by former Nairobi governor Mike Sonko that she attempted to influence appointment of his deputy last year prior to his impeachment.

Ms Pratt has termed as false Mr Sonko's claims that she contacted him seeking to impose Ms Jane Weru as his deputy, instead of Ms Anne Kananu Mwenda.

Audio recording

While urging court to expunge their names from a case filed by Mr Sonko seeking to recapture his seat, Ms Pratt and Ms Weru said it was as a result of the false claims and non-existent phone conversation that Mr Sonko purported to revoke the appointment of Ms Mwenda.

It is their case that Mr Sonko falsified, forged, fabricated and concocted an audio recording and transcript of the alleged telephone conversation with Ms Pratt purported to have taken place prior to his impeachment in December 2020.

They also wanted the court to strike out or order the amendment of the petition and Mr Sonko's supporting affidavit by striking out and expunging from the record some paragraphs that make reference to or against them.

But the court declined their request, saying it lacked merit. This is because they have admitted that they have been adversely mentioned in the petition and among the orders they seek is an expungement of the portions of the pleadings that refer to them.

"How could they have sought that order if they had not been named as interested parties in the first place? Indeed, the prayer for expungement of some portions of the pleadings by itself confirms that they have an interest in the proceedings," ruled a three-judge bench comprising justices Juma Chitembwe, Weldon Korir and Wilfrida Okwany.

In their ruling delivered last week, the judges said Mr Sonko had not violated the court's rules – the Mutunga Rules -- by including Ms Pratt and Ms Weru as interested parties at the time of the institution of the petition.

Damage reputation 

The second ground upon which the applicants sought to be struck out of the proceedings was that they have no interest in the outcome of the petition.

It was their case that Mr Sonko has averred about a non-existent telephone conversation with Ms Pratt with a view of dragging them into the case for the purpose of embarrassing them and damaging their reputations.

However, the court said the applicants were conflicted because they claim not to have an interest in the matter and at the same time seek to have some parts of pleadings in a case they say they have no interest in expunged.

"They also say the pleadings injure their reputation. In our view, the applicants’ actions provide evidence to the assertion that they have an interest in the outcome of the matter. It will affect them whichever way it will go. They are, therefore, properly before this court as interested parties," said the judges.

The court stated that among the issues to be determined in the 10 consolidated petitions is whether Mr Sonko actually withdrew the nomination of Ms Mwenda as the deputy governor.

Mr Sonko's case, the court said, is that he withdrew the nomination of Ms Mwenda following his conversation with Ms Pratt.

"His averment is, therefore, necessary for the determination of the matter in dispute. Whether the averment is false or not will be determined when the court proceeds to weigh the evidence adduced by all the parties as a whole," the court said.

It found that indeed, Mr Sonko's claims may be untrue as alleged by Ms Pratt and Ms Weru, however, the court said, the averments by the former governor must be tested against the averments of Ms Pratt and Ms Weru and other parties at the trial before the court can reach a conclusion as to whether the statements are true or not.

"The applicants must hold their horses instead of attempting to mutilate another party’s case. The applicants will elect whether to participate in the proceedings or not," ruled the court.

No valid proof

In their application, Ms Pratt and Ms Weru said the claims made by the former governor against them are not supported by any valid proof or bona fide evidentiary material.

They argued that the petition does not raise any genuine grievance or cause of action against them and has only been instituted for personal gain and out of ill motive.

Mr Sonko was opposed to the application saying the applicants are necessary and relevant parties for the full and final adjudication by the issues raised in his petition.

He argued that the applicants will not suffer any prejudice if they are retained in the matter and their absence from the proceedings will lead to a multiplicity of suits in respect of the context of his revocation of the recommendation for the appointment of Ms Kananu as the deputy governor.

He told court that he stood to suffer prejudice if the application got allowed as he will be making reference to parties who are not before the court. BY DAILY NATION