[2022] KEHC 395 (KLR)
The court held that the application was premature because the applicant had not exhausted the procedure of raising objections before the Deputy Registrar, who has jurisdiction over bills of costs. The law requires that any party aggrieved by the Deputy Registrar's decision may then approach the High Court by way of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 395 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Hon. Engineer Nicholas Gumbo; Respondent: Commission (Iebc; Respondent: Ruth K. Kulundu; Respondent: H.E. Cornel Rasanga Amoth
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Election Petition 3 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Election Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application Challenging Bill of Costs
- Outcome
- application struck out as premature
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Bill of Costs, Jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar, Procedure for Taxation, Prematurity of Application
- 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
Hon. Engineer Nicholas Gumbo
Applicant
Commission (Iebc
Respondent
Ruth K. Kulundu
Respondent
H.E. Cornel Rasanga Amoth
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Ruling on Interlocutory Application Challenging Bill of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should entertain the application challenging the bill of costs before the Deputy Registrar has determined it.
- 2 Whether the applicant should first raise the issues before the Deputy Registrar as required by procedure.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application was premature because the applicant had not exhausted the procedure of raising objections before the Deputy Registrar, who has jurisdiction over bills of costs. The law requires that any party aggrieved by the Deputy Registrar's decision may then approach the High Court by way of Reference. Since the matter was already before the Deputy Registrar and directions had been given for the filing of submissions, the applicant should pursue those avenues first. Accordingly, the application was struck out as premature, with no orders as to costs.
Court Disposition
application struck out as premature
Orders
- The application is struck out as premature.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Gumbo v Commission (Iebc & 2 others (Election Petition 3 of 2017) [2022] KEHC 395 (KLR) (6 May 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 395 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Siaya
Election Petition 3 of 2017
RE Aburili, J
May 6, 2022
Between
Hon. Engineer Nicholas Gumbo
Applicant
and
Commission (Iebc
1st Respondent
Ruth K. Kulundu
2nd Respondent
H.E. Cornel Rasanga Amoth
3rd Respondent
Ruling
1. I have heard the applicant’s counsel virtually and considered the application under Certificate of urgency. I certify it as urgent.
2. On the substance thereof, I observe that the application is in respect of, and challenges the Respondent’s bill of costs dated 25th January 2022 upon which the parties have already taken directions before Hon. L. Simiyu Deputy Registrar and the matter is slated for mention on 11/5/2022 to confirm compliance with the directions on filing of written submissions to canvass the filed bill.
3. In my view, the issues being raised in the instant application can still be raised before the Deputy Registrar who has the jurisdiction to hear the parties on the bill of costs and as required by law, procedurally, any aggrieved party, by the orders of the Deputy Registrar, would have the liberty and opportunity to approach the High Court (read Judge) by way of a Reference.
4. For that reason, I find this application premature. The same is, at this earliest opportunity struck out with no orders as to costs.
5. Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and Delivered at Siaya this 6th Day of May 2022R.E. ABURILIJUDGE