By James Murimi - Reporter
Kenya, May 11, 2026 - The battle for control of the ruling party ticket in Ol Kalou Constituency has escalated into a high-stakes legal and political showdown after defeated aspirant George Wambugu Delight formally challenged the victory of Samuel Muchina Nyagah in the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) nominations.
Fresh documents filed before the UDA Electoral and Nomination Dispute Resolution Committee (ENDRC) reveal explosive allegations of tallying irregularities, formula manipulation, manual voter entries and discrepancies in ward-level results, claims that now threaten to plunge the party into a fresh political storm ahead of the by-election.
The dispute has opened deep cracks within the ruling party in Nyandarua County, with Wambugu demanding the immediate nullification of the results that declared Muchina the winner by a razor-thin margin of 144 votes.
According to official UDA results released after the May 8 nominations, Muchina garnered 3,221 votes against Wambugu’s 3,077 votes in a bruising contest that attracted ten aspirants.
But in a formal complaint lodged before the party tribunal, Wambugu rejected the outcome, arguing that an independent audit of tallying documents uncovered “material irregularities” capable of overturning the final result.
“The discrepancies materially affect the integrity of the nomination process and possess the mathematical weight to alter the final outcome of the election,” Wambugu stated in his complaint.
He accused election officials of presiding over conflicting tally records, suspicious formula overrides and questionable aggregation processes in several wards, including Mirangine, Rurii, Kaimbaga, Karau and Kanjuiri Range.
The complaint singled out Kagaa Primary, Huruma Primary, Rurii Polytechnic, Nyakiambi Primary, Gituamba Primary, Kanjuiri Primary and CCM Dundori Primary as polling stations requiring urgent forensic scrutiny.
Wambugu further alleged that individuals aligned to rival candidates manually entered lists of identification numbers into the system to manipulate results in favour of a preferred aspirant.
“Our agents noticed people aligned to my competitors providing lists of ID numbers to be manually entered into the system to favor a particular candidate,” he claimed.
The aggrieved aspirant is now seeking either a repeat of the nominations or a full station-by-station forensic audit and reconciliation of all tally sheets and electronic records.
He also demanded preservation of all original tally sheets, ward summaries and digital audit trails to prevent possible tampering with evidence.
The UDA tribunal has since acknowledged receipt of the complaint and scheduled the matter for hearing.
However, Muchina, through his lawyer Levi Munyeri, has mounted a fierce counterattack seeking to have the complaint thrown out before full hearing.
In a hard-hitting response filed before the committee, Muchina dismissed the allegations as “hearsay, speculative and legally defective.”
More from Kenya
The winner’s legal team argued that Wambugu’s complaint should be struck out for failure to pay the mandatory Sh100,000 filing fees required by the party tribunal.
“The Committee is respectfully invited to confirm on the record, before any further proceedings, that the Ksh100,000 filing fee was paid,” the response states.
Muchina’s lawyers further accused Wambugu of attempting to overturn the outcome after fully participating in the nomination process without raising objections during tallying.
“The Complainant’s agents are presumed to have signed the station returns and ward summary sheets without reservation,” the response reads.
The Muchina camp also faulted Wambugu for allegedly failing to provide documentary proof to support claims of manipulation, insisting no audit reports, raw data or tally sheets had been attached to the complaint.
“Bare allegations of an audit without the auditor’s report or supporting evidence constitute inadmissible hearsay,” Muchina’s lawyers argued.
The response further maintained that even if isolated clerical or administrative errors existed, there was no evidence they were substantial enough to alter the final outcome.
“Thousands of UDA members in Ol Kalou exercised their democratic right. Their sovereign will cannot be overturned on the basis of unsubstantiated clerical or spreadsheet errors,” the response states.
In a fresh twist, Wambugu’s lawyer Joseph Wang’ondu has now written to the tribunal requesting a reduction of the Sh100,000 filing fee.
The lawyer termed the timelines issued by the tribunal as unrealistic and argued that the amount demanded was punitive after an expensive nomination exercise.
“If not reduced to at least half the amount, our client’s right to be heard stands to be violated,” Wang’ondu wrote.
The unfolding dispute now places the ruling party in a delicate political position as it struggles to contain fallout from one of its most fiercely contested grassroots nomination battles.
With both camps digging in and accusations of electoral manipulation flying across the divide, the Ol Kalou showdown is shaping up into a defining test of UDA’s internal dispute resolution machinery and its commitment to credible party primaries.