[2008] KEHC 2975 (KLR)
The court determined that the application for extension of time to deposit security for costs should be heard first, with specific directions for the filing and service of affidavits by the parties and relevant High Court Registry officials. The court emphasized the need for procedural fairness and the opportunity...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 2975 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Esposito Franco; Respondent: Amason Kingi Jeffah; Respondent: Amina Kale; Respondent: Electoral Commission of Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Election Petition 1 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Election Petition / Interlocutory Applications—directions on Hearing of Applications for Extension of Time to Deposit Security for Costs and Striking Out Petition
- Outcome
- Directions issued for hearing of interlocutory applications; application for extension of time to deposit security for costs to be heard first; timelines set for filing affidavits; application to strike out petition deferred.
- Judges
- CA Ombija
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Extension of Time, Striking Out Petition, Affidavit Evidence, Procedural Directions
- 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
Esposito Franco
Applicant
Amason Kingi Jeffah
Respondent
Amina Kale
Respondent
Electoral Commission of Kenya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Interlocutory Applications—directions on Hearing of Applications for Extension of Time to Deposit Security for Costs and Striking Out Petition
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner should be granted an extension of time to deposit security for costs.
- 2 Whether the petition should be struck out for failure to comply with procedural requirements.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that the application for extension of time to deposit security for costs should be heard first, with specific directions for the filing and service of affidavits by the parties and relevant High Court Registry officials. The court emphasized the need for procedural fairness and the opportunity for all parties to respond to the issues raised. The court also granted liberty to apply for cross-examination of deponents and set a date for the inter partes hearing of the application. The application to strike out the petition was deferred pending the outcome of the application for extension of time. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of procedural justice...
Court Disposition
Directions issued for hearing of interlocutory applications; application for extension of time to deposit security for costs to be heard first; timelines set for filing affidavits; application to strike out petition deferred.
Orders
- Application for extension of time to deposit security for costs to be heard first.
- Two replying affidavits by High Court Registry officials to be filed and served within 3 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MALINDI
Election Petition 1 of 2008
IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ACT, CHAPTER 7, PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION REGULATIONS THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY (ELECTION PETITION) RULES, THE ELECTION OFFENCES ACT, CHAPTER 66
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION FOR MAGARINI CONSTITUENCY
BETWEEN
ESPOSITO FRANCO …………………….……………….....…………PETITIONER
VERSUS
AMASON KINGI JEFFAH ……………………………………..1ST RESPONDENT
AMINA KALE …………………………………………….……. 2ND RESPONDENT
ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA …………….……..3RD RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
I have before me, two interlocutory applications filed by respective parties to this petition.
One, application by way of Notice of Motion dated 8th February 2008 for extension of time within which to deposit security for costs filed by the petitioner herein on 11th February 2008.
Two, application by way of Notice of Motion dated 8th February 2008 for striking out the petition. It was filed by the respondent herein on 11th February 2008.
I have carefully perused both applications. Having done so, I now give the following orders, by way of directions:-
1) The application by way of Notice of Motion dated 8th February 2008 for extension of time within which to deposit security for costs shall be heard first.
Towards that end, the following affidavits shall be filed and served within the time frame given hereunder:
(i) Two replying affidavits by two High Court Registry officials, namely Mrs. Gladys Kalama and Mr. Douglas Randu, touching on issues as relates to them raised by the affidavit in support.
(ii) Replying affidavits by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents, on the issues raised by the affidavit in support and affidavits of the said two High Court officials, including any points of law (if any) that they may deem pertinent to the issues at hand.
(iii) Further affidavit by the petitioner or his advocates.
2) (i) Replying affidavits of the two High Court Registry officials aforesaid to be filed and served within 3 days from today’s date.
(ii) Replying affidavits of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents (if any) to be filed 3 days from the date of service of affidavits by the two High Court Registry officials.
(iii) Further affidavits by the petitioner’s advocates to be filed and served 3 days from the date of service of replying affidavits upon them.
(iv) Liberty to apply to any party to cross-examine any deponent of affidavits filed herein, in terms of the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
3) The application by way of Notice of Motion dated 8th May 2008, for extension of time within which to deposit security for costs, to be heard on 21st February 2008 inter partes.
4) Upon the ruling on this application being delivered, the respondent be at liberty to fix the application by way of Motion for striking out the petition for hearing.
Dated and delivered at Malindi this 13th day of February 2008.
N. R. O. Ombija
JUDGE