[2013] KEHC 2723 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 2723 (KLR)

The court found that the delay by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in filing their answer and replying affidavits was only three days and was satisfactorily explained by the illness of a key witness, the Returning Officer for Tigania East Constituency. The court held that the delay was not inordinate and that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 2723 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Dickson Mwenda Kithinji; Respondent: Gatirau Peter Munya; Respondent: Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC); Respondent: Fredrick Njeru Kamundi (County Returning Officer, Meru County)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Election Petition 1 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Answer and Replying Affidavits
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
AN Makau
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Procedural Technicalities, Filing of Affidavits
Source Language
en
Election Petitions Civil Procedure Extension of Time Procedural Technicalities Filing of Affidavits

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dickson Mwenda Kithinji

Applicant

Gatirau Peter Munya

Respondent

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)

Respondent

Fredrick Njeru Kamundi (County Returning Officer, Meru County)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Answer and Replying Affidavits

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend time for the 2nd and 3rd respondents to file and serve their answer to the petition and replying affidavits out of time.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the answer and replying affidavits was inordinate or excusable.
  3. 3 Whether refusal to grant extension would amount to injustice to the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay by the 2nd and 3rd respondents in filing their answer and replying affidavits was only three days and was satisfactorily explained by the illness of a key witness, the Returning Officer for Tigania East Constituency. The court held that the delay was not inordinate and that the respondents had acted diligently by promptly seeking an extension. Applying Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution and Section 80(1)(d) of the Elections Act, the court emphasized the need to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. The court further noted that refusing the extension would amount to injustice, as it would deny the respondents an opportunity...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • Time for filing and service of the answer to the petition and replying affidavits by the 2nd and 3rd respondents is extended.
  • The answer to petition and replying affidavits filed out of time are deemed as duly filed.