[2013] KEHC 3458 (KLR)
The court found that the petitioner had provided sound and merited reasons for withdrawal, including reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in the Presidential Election Petition and consideration of public and personal interests. The court was satisfied, based on affidavits from the respondents and their counsel,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 3458 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Martin Sarakwe Wechuli; Respondent: Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission (IEBC); Respondent: The Returning Officer, Bumula Constituency; Respondent: Boniface Okhiya Otsiula
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Election Petition 7 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Election Petition / Withdrawal Application Ruling
- Outcome
- Petition withdrawn; costs awarded to respondents.
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Election Petition, Costs Award, Public Interest in Election Petitions
- 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
Martin Sarakwe Wechuli
Petitioner
Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission (IEBC)
Respondent
The Returning Officer, Bumula Constituency
Respondent
Boniface Okhiya Otsiula
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Withdrawal Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the petitioner has satisfied the legal requirements for withdrawal of an election petition.
- 2 Whether there is any agreement or undertaking between the parties in relation to the withdrawal.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded to the respondents upon withdrawal of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the petitioner had provided sound and merited reasons for withdrawal, including reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in the Presidential Election Petition and consideration of public and personal interests. The court was satisfied, based on affidavits from the respondents and their counsel, that no agreement or undertaking had been made in relation to the withdrawal. The court emphasized the public nature of election petitions and the requirement for notice of withdrawal to be published to allow for substitution, but noted that no one had sought to be substituted. The court therefore allowed the withdrawal and, recognizing the respondents' incurred expenses,...
Court Disposition
Petition withdrawn; costs awarded to respondents.
Orders
- The Election Petition No.7 of 2013 is marked as withdrawn.
- Costs of this petition shall be borne by the petitioner.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Bungoma
Election Petition 7 of 2013 [if gte mso 9]><xml>
14. 00
</xml><![endif]
THE ELECTION ACT (2011)
ELECTION FOR THE MEMBEROF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
MARTIN SARAKWE WECHULI......................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
IEBC.........................................................................................1ST RESPONDENT
THE RETURNING OFFICER, BUMULACONSTITUENCY...2ND RESPONDENT
BONIFACE OKHIYA OTSIULA..............................................3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
MARTIN S. WECHULI (the petitioner) had filed this election petition against Independent Electoral Boundaries Commission (IEBC), the Returning Officer Bumula Constituency and Bonface Okhiya Otsiula (1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents respectively). He had sought for orders to declare that the 3rd Respondent (BONFACE OKHIYA OTSIULA) was not duly elected, and that the election was void.
He had alleged certain discrepancies and breaches of the Electoral laws at various polling stations, resulting in what he described as elections which were neither free nor fair.
The Respondents filed responses contesting the allegations, saying the elections were free, fair and credible.
On 22/04/2013, the petitioner filed a notice of withdrawal of the Election Petition and applied to withdraw the petition on grounds that:-
a)He has held serious consultations and sought legal advise from his counsel, which has resulted in him concluding that the best decision for him is to withdraw the petition.
b)He has also examined carefully, the decision by the Supreme Court – I suppose he is referring to the recently concluded Presidential Election Petition No.5 of 2013 (Raila Odinga V IEBC and 3 others) as consolidated with Petition No.3 of 2013, (Moses Kiarie Kuria and 2 others V Ahmed Isaack Hassan and IEBC), and Petition No.4 of 2013 (Gladwel Wathoni Otieno and Another V Ahmed Isaack Hassanand 3 others) where the petitioners challenge election of His Excellency President Uhuru Kenyatta was dismissed. He states that in light of that decision and having continuously followed the mood of his constituents, he has resolved not to pursue the petition further.
The petitioner has also reflected on all the attending circumstances, family ramifications and he has concluded that in the best interest of the people of Bumula Constituency, this petition be withdrawn.
He realizes that his grievances are likely to be properly addressed in future recommendations and changes in the electoral process and by the electoral body as was cited by the Supreme Court decision. This means no serious prejudice will be occasioned to him
The application for withdrawal is not opposed, and an affidavit is sworn on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Respondents by PETER MAUTA KAINDIO (the Returning Officer for the election of the Member of the National Assembly for Bumula Constituency, during the 4th March 2013 General Elections).
He confirms that to the best of the 1st and 2nd Respondent’s knowledge (he being an employee of IEBC, there is no agreement or terms of any kind that have been made, and no undertaking has been entered into in relation to the withdrawal of the petition.
The counsel for 1st and 2nd Respondents, Mr. Cyprian Masafui Wekesa has also sworn an affidavit confirming that no agreement or terms of any kind has been made nor is there any undertaking entered into in relation to this withdrawal.
There are also affidavits filed by the 3rd Respondent and his counsel.
I have considered the grounds upon which the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petition bearing in mind that an election petition is not just for the interest of one individual, but affects the interest of the entire public, this is why the notice of withdrawal must be published in the Kenya Gazette, so that in the event that another person is keen on being substituted to pursue the petition in the interest pubic, such opportunity should not be lost. As at the time of the court ruling, no one indicated a desire to be so substituted.
I have perused the affidavits filed by the respondents and their counsel, who confirm not to have made any arrangement, agreement or undertaking in relation to the withdrawal. I have considered the reasons given for the withdrawal which is as a result of not only personal interest of the petitioner, but the interest of the people of Bumula, his family, and the fact that he recognizes that most of the issues he raised especially with regard to 1st and 2nd respondents have been addressed by the Supreme Court in its ruling in Election Petition No.5 of 2013, and appropriate directions given especially as concerns the electoral body and the conduct of future elections.
Consequently, I am satisfied that the reasons given for the withdrawal are sound and merited and I allow the application. The Election Petition No.7 of 2013 is marked as withdrawn.
Since the respondents have incurred considerable expense and time in preparing the responses to the petition and engaging counsel in attending court and collecting evidence, I am persuaded that they are entitled to costs. I therefore order that costs of this petition shall be borne by the petitioner.
Parties are directed to file their bill of costs for taxation.
Delivered and dated this 15th day of May, 2013 at Bungoma.
H.A. OMONDI
JUDGE
Mr. Sichanyi for Petitioner
Mr. Wekesa for1st and 2nd Respondents and holding brief Mr. Wangalwa for 3rd Respondent