[2017] KEHC 6538 (KLR)
The court determined that, since there were no stay orders issued by the Supreme Court in relation to the present matter, and given the protracted delay without any indication of imminent determination by the Supreme Court, it would be improper to allow the proceedings to remain in abeyance indefinitely. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 6538 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Zachary Okoth Obado; Respondent: Edward Akong’o Oyugi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Homa Bay
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Election Petition 3 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Election Petition / Ruling on Directions for Disposal of Application Dated 27/05/2016
- Outcome
- Application to be disposed of by written submissions; timelines set for filing and mention date fixed.
- Legal Topics
- Governor Election Dispute, Application for Directions, Stay of Proceedings, Supreme Court Pending Matter
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Zachary Okoth Obado
Applicant
Edward Akong’o Oyugi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Ruling on Directions for Disposal of Application Dated 27/05/2016
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should proceed to hear and determine the application dated 27/05/2016 despite the pendency of a related matter before the Supreme Court.
- 2 Whether the absence of a stay order from the Supreme Court justifies proceeding with the application.
- 3 What directions should be given for the expeditious disposal of the pending application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that, since there were no stay orders issued by the Supreme Court in relation to the present matter, and given the protracted delay without any indication of imminent determination by the Supreme Court, it would be improper to allow the proceedings to remain in abeyance indefinitely. The court found that it had already exercised sufficient indulgence towards the respondent and that the interests of justice required the matter to proceed. Accordingly, the court directed that the application dated 27/05/2016 be disposed of by way of written submissions within specified timelines, thereby ensuring expeditious resolution while maintaining procedural fairness.
Court Disposition
Application to be disposed of by written submissions; timelines set for filing and mention date fixed.
Orders
- The applicant to file and serve written submissions within 7 days from the date of the ruling.
- The respondent to file and serve a written response within 7 days of service.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT HOMA BAY
THE ELECTIONS ACT, 2011
ELECTION PETITION NO.3 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF ELECTION FOR THE GOVERNOR OF MIGORI COUNTY
EDWARD AKONG’O OYUGI .................................................... OPETITIONER
VERSUS
THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL
BOUNDARIES COMMISSION ....................................... 1ST RESPONDENT
JAIRUS OBAGA ............................................................. 2ND RESPONDENT
ZACHARY OKOTH OBADO ........................................ 3RD RESPONDENT
AND
IN THE MATTER OF TAXATION
BETWEEN
ZACHARY OKOTH OBADO ................ 3RD RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
AND
EDWARD AKONG’O OYUGI .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This matter has been pending in court since05/04/2016 when Majanja J gave directions to parties to file written submissions in relation to the application dated 26th February 2016. However the ruling was deferred because the court was informed that the respondent’s counsel had not been served.
2. Thereafter an application dated 27/05/2016 was filed and set for direction on 13/07/2016 but it was not heard as the court was of the view that it would be premature to hear the matter on a day which had been set for mention.
3. Thereafter the court was informed that parties were awaiting the outcome of a matter filed before the Supreme Court – However to date very little progress has been made in the Supreme Court as the information given by Mr. Makolwal is that the Supreme Court has not even given a date for ruling.
4. It is conceded that there are no stay orders issued by the Supreme Court with regard to this matter and this court had only indulged the parties on good faith and in the honest belief that since the outcome of the matter before the Supreme Court would have a bearing on the present case, it would be prudent to abide the outcome of the superior court’s findings.
5. Miss Mugenya for the objector has urged the court to direct that the matter herein be heard and disposed of as they had even filed submissions in 2016 and the ruling which was due for delivery on 31/05/2016 ought to be delivered.
6. I think the court has more than over indulged the respondent and since there is no signal that the Supreme Court will render its decision soon, then this matter cannot have an endless life span. As pointed out earlier, the ruling due on 31/05/2016 aboredt upon filing of application dated 27/05/2016 and this means what must first be dealt with is that application.
7. I therefore direct that the application dated 27/05/2016 be disposed off by way of written submissions as follows:-
a) The applicant do file and serve written submissions within 7 days from today.
b) The Respondent files and serves written response within 7 days of service.
c) The applicant is at liberty to file and serve a written reply within 7 days of service.
d) Mention on 28/03/2017 for taking ruling date.
8. This order be served on parties and counsel.
Delivered and dated on this 7thday of March, 2017 at Homa Bay
H.A. OMONDI, JUDGE
07. 03. 2017
Mr. Ochieng holding brief for Sagana for Objector
N/A for Respondent