[2017] KEHC 1132 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 1132 (KLR)

The court found that the central issue was whether the petitioner had complied with the statutory requirement to deposit security for costs within the prescribed period. The evidence presented by the petitioner included bank deposit slips and receipts, but discrepancies and inconsistencies were noted by the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 1132 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: Idris Abdi Abdullahi; Respondent: Ahmed Bashane; Respondent: Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission (IEBC); Respondent: Returning Officer Tarbaj Constituency
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Election Petition 6 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Interlocutory Application Regarding Security for Costs
Outcome
Further directions issued; no final determination on dismissal application pending clarification from Garissa High Court officials.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Compliance With Statutory Timelines, Election Petition Procedure
Source Language
en
Election Petitions Civil Procedure Security for Costs Compliance With Statutory Timelines Election Petition Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Idris Abdi Abdullahi

Petitioner

Ahmed Bashane

Respondent

Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission (IEBC)

Respondent

Returning Officer Tarbaj Constituency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Interlocutory Application Regarding Security for Costs

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner deposited security for costs within the prescribed period as required by Section 78(3) of the Elections Act 2011.
  2. 2 Whether failure to deposit security for costs warrants dismissal of the petition under the Elections Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the central issue was whether the petitioner had complied with the statutory requirement to deposit security for costs within the prescribed period. The evidence presented by the petitioner included bank deposit slips and receipts, but discrepancies and inconsistencies were noted by the respondents regarding the authenticity and details of these documents. The court observed that as of 10th November 2017, there was no receipt in the court file confirming payment, and the Deputy Registrar had not responded to inquiries from the respondents. However, a statement from the Judiciary Accounts department indicated that a deposit of Ksh 500,000 was made by M.M Gitonga...

Court Disposition

Further directions issued; no final determination on dismissal application pending clarification from Garissa High Court officials.

Orders

  • The Deputy Registrar/Executive Officer Garissa High Court shall avail to this Court the original Receipt Book where the instant receipt for security costs was extracted and produce the same to this Court on Monday 4th December 2017.