Anifah Aman must cite special circumstances.
He can point out to the court that he was not disqualified from offering himself as a candidate in Kimanis or other elections in the near future.
He must file a certificate of urgency.
The court in nullifying AA’s election could have handed the seat to Karim.
No need by-election.
Calling for a by-election has created issues in conflict which can only be resolved by the court.
The court can tell AA that he should be happy that the seat was not handed to Karim. That gives him another bite at the cherry.
There’s no reason for the EC to appeal against nullification of the election in Kimanis.
It could have appealed on other matters but can’t be forced to do so.
AA’s Application will be struck out if no special circumstances.
EC should be neutral and not oppose AA’s application.
What’s the reason for Karim to oppose the stay application?
The court should have handed him the Kimanis seat.
Since AA could not be disqualified, the court should not have nullified Kimanis.
No election is free of fraud.
What the court looks at is whether the extent of fraud in an election affected the outcome.
In Kimanis, was it fraud or mistakes?
Whether fraud or mistakes, they were not attributed to AA. Hence, he could not be disqualified.
If there were mistakes in Kimanis, it was implied that the EC was responsible.
The way forward in Kimanis would be for the court to hand the seat to Karim.
AA should sue EC for compensation and damages.
If the by-election is over by the time AA’s case is heard, his Application would be dismissed/struck out on the grounds that it’s “academic” i.e. no “live” issue.
UPDATE . . .