[2017] KEHC 1952 (KLR)
The court held that the petitioner failed to file and serve the supplementary affidavit within the seven-day period ordered by the court. The explanation provided for the delay was found unsatisfactory, as the petitioner did not demonstrate sufficient cause for non-compliance with the timelines. The court emphasized...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 1952 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Mugambi Angaine; Respondent: I.E.B.C.; Respondent: Wario Ibrahim Ali; Respondent: Rindiki Mugambi Murwithania
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Election Petition 2 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Election Petition / Interlocutory Application Ruling on Supplementary Affidavit
- Outcome
- Supplementary affidavit struck out for non-compliance with timelines. No order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Supplementary Affidavit, Timelines for Filing, Electoral Dispute Resolution, Pre Trial Procedure
- 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
John Mugambi Angaine
Applicant
I.E.B.C.
Respondent
Wario Ibrahim Ali
Respondent
Rindiki Mugambi Murwithania
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Interlocutory Application Ruling on Supplementary Affidavit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner should be allowed to file and rely on a supplementary affidavit filed outside the court-ordered timelines.
- 2 Whether the delay in filing the supplementary affidavit was satisfactorily explained.
- 3 Whether admitting the late affidavit would prejudice the respondents and undermine the timely resolution of electoral disputes.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the petitioner failed to file and serve the supplementary affidavit within the seven-day period ordered by the court. The explanation provided for the delay was found unsatisfactory, as the petitioner did not demonstrate sufficient cause for non-compliance with the timelines. The court emphasized that strict adherence to timelines in election petitions is essential to ensure the timely resolution of electoral disputes, as required by the Constitution. Allowing the supplementary affidavit after inordinate delay would prejudice the respondents and undermine the integrity of the electoral process. Consequently, the supplementary affidavit was struck out for non-compliance...
Court Disposition
Supplementary affidavit struck out for non-compliance with timelines. No order as to costs.
Orders
- The petitioner's supplementary affidavit is struck out for failure to comply with the court-ordered timelines.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
ELECTION PETITION NO. 2 OF 2017
JOHN MUGAMBI ANGAINE..........................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
I.E.B.C..................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
WARIO IBRAHIM ALI
R/O BUURI CONSTITUENCY..........................2ND RESPONDENT
RINDIKI MUGAMBI MURWITHANIA................3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
The order allowing/granting leave to the Petitioner to file supplementary affidavit together with particulars sought for by the 3rd Respondent was made on 16th October 2017. The supplementary affidavit was to be filed in 7 days from 17th October 2017. Which would have been 24th October 2017.
Upon service of the supplementary affidavit the 3rd Respondents counsel conceded to petitioner filing supplementary affidavit as long as they are given corresponding leave. Had the Petitioner filed supplementary affidavit by 24th October 2017 the Respondents would have had 7 days within much to respond if need be.
The Petitioner claims that he was supplied with forms only 2 ½ weeks ago. The order to supply forms was made on 17th October 2017. The 1st and 2nd Respondents leave to respond to affidavits of Petitioners additional 2 witnesses was not tied to the Petitioner filing supplementary affidavit in relation t the forms supplied and particulars requested by 3rd Respondent.
The Petitioner and 3rd Respondent were to provide flash disks into which the information in forms 35 As and Bs were to be transferred. Whether that was done by the Petitioner and when it was done is not clear.
As at 16. 10. 2017 complaint of Petitioner not keeping timelines was raised and counsels say the indulgences by the court can’t go beyond certain limits. The court didn’t give the timelines in vain. The application to file supplementary affidavit was done outside the time when pre-trial conference and/or preliminary issues in this election petition were supposed to be handled and it can’t be that even on the hearing date very weighty issues are being introduced without giving an opportunity to the other parties to respond.
The Petitioner has not explained satisfactorily why the supplementary affidavit was not filed and served within 7 days from 17/10/2-17. This court is of the view that allowing the Petitioners supplementary affidavit with the accompanying inordinate delay will undermine the constitutional imperative to timely resolution of electoral disputes. The said supplementary affidavit not having complied with the timelines given is therefore struck out. No orders as to costs.
Hon. A.Ong’injo J
04. 12. 2017
Ruling Signed Delivered and Dated this 04th Day of December 2017.
Hon. A.Ong’injo J
04. 12. 2017