REPUBLIC  OF  KENYA

IN  THE  SENIOR  PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE’S  COURT  AT  MIGORI

ELECTION  PETITION  NUMBER   1  OF  2013

MICHAEL  ODOYO  NYAKWAKA ..................................................................PETITIONER

VERSUS

BOAZ  OWITI  OKOTH....................................................................... 1ST  RESPONDENT

RETURNING  OFFICER  FOR NYATIKE CONSTITUENCY................2ND  RESPONDENT

INDEPENDENT  ELECTORAL & BOUNDARIES  COMMISSION....3RD RESPONDENT

RULING:

     The  petitioner  herein  Michael  Odoyo  Nyakwaka  has  filed  an  application  dated   27/6/13  seeking  for leave  to  withdraw  this  election Petition  pursuant  to  Rule  23  of  the  Elections (Parliamentary  and  County  Elections)  Petition  Rules   2013.   The  application  is  supported  by  the  affidavit  of  the  petitioner  applicant sworn  on  even  date  and  the  following grounds  namely:

(1). That  the  Petitioner  and  the  1st  Respondent  have  reached  a  mutual  consent  to  have  the  petition  withdrawn.

(2). That  is  in  the  interest  of  the  Petitioner  and  1st  Respondent  and  the  people  of  North  Kadem  Ward  in  general  that  the  Petition  be  withdrawn.

(3).That  the  withdrawal  will enhance  peace and  speedy  development  of   North  Kadem  Ward.

     The  Petitioner  subsequently published  in  the  Kenya  Gazette a notice  of  withdrawal  in  the  prescribed  form E P 6  set  out  in  the  schedule.   The  Gazette  Notice  is  No.9750  dated  9/7/13  and  published  on  the  12/7/13  as  issue No. Vol. CXV – NO. 103.

       The  1st  Respondent  and  Counsel  for  the  2nd  and  3rd Respondents  filed  replying  affidavits  in  which  they  opposed  the  application  on  the  ground  that  the  same  has  been  made  rather,  late  in  the  day  after  the  petition  has  been  heard  and  submissions  filed  with  the  parties  awaiting a date  for  Judgment.   The  Respondents  further  contended  that  in  the  event  the  application  is  granted.   Costs  should  be  awarded  to  the  Respondents.

     I  have  considered  the  submissions  of  the  three  learned  Counsels  representing  the  parties  herein.  I  have  considered  the  affidavits  filed.  Indeed  this  petition  had  been  fully  heard  and  that  parties  had  filed  written  submissions  and  were  awaiting  to  be  given  a date  for  Judgment  when  the  present  application  was  filed.   In  principle  all  the  counsels  for  the  Respondents  have  indicated  that  they  have  no  objection  to  the  withdrawal  of  the  Petition  but  are  pitching  tent  for  costs  to  be awarded  to  them.   As  noted  earlier  the  petitioner  duly  had  the  notice  of  withdrawal  in  the  Kenya Gazette  and  that  at  the  hearing  hereof  the  seven  days  had  elapsed  and  no  person  had  come  forward  seeking  to  be permitted  to  be  substituted  and  to  proceed  with  the  petition.    Hence  the  issue  now  is  only  between  the  petitioner  and  the  Respondents.

    Counsel  for  the  petitioner  submitted  that  the  Petitioner  and  1st  Respondent  held  a  meeting in  which  it  was  resolved  to  have  petition  withdrawn  and  each  party  bear  their  own  costs,  and  further  that  the  security  for  costs  deposited  herein  to  be  released  to  petitioner’s  Advocate.   Counsel  for  the  petitioner  further  submitted  that  there  should  not  be  costs  to  2nd  and  3rd  Respondent  since  they  are  funded  from public coffers and  tax  payers  and  that  the  petitioner  herein who  is  also  a tax  payer  should  not  be  penalised.

   Counsels  for  the  respondents urged  this  Court  to  consider  the  strict  provisions  of  the  Elections  Act  and  Rules   mainly  on  the  fact  that  costs  follow  the  event.   The  Respondents  Counsels further  argued that  the  case had  proceeded  and  submissions  only  awaing  a date  for  the  Judgment and  as  such the  Court  should  consider  the  amount of  time  involved  in  the  hearing,  research, travelling  and  attendances.

      The  guiding  provisions  of  the  Law  in  this  matter  are  found  in  section  78  and  84  of  the  Elections  Act   2011  as  well  as  rules  34 to  36  of  the  Elections Act (parliamentary and county  elections) Petition  Rules  2013.  Sections  78(4) and  (5)  of  the  elections  Act  provides  for  costs regarding  election  petitions.    The  rationale for costs is  reinforced  by  the  strict  provisions vide  section  78(1)  which  demands  that  the  petitioner  shall  deposit  security  for  costs  which  may  become  payable  by  him  or  her  within  10  days  after  the presentation  of  petition.  Again  section  84  of  the  said  Act  Provides  that  an  election  Court  shall  award  costs  of  and  incidental  to  a petition  and  such  costs  shall  follow  the  cause.

     Under  Rules  34 – 36  an  election  Court  is  mandated  to  tax and or assess  costs  payable  in  accordance  wtih  provision  of  the  Civil  Procedure  Act  and  Rules.   It  follows  therefore  that  the  issue  of  costs  is  a serious  matter  which  must  be  contemplated  by  a petitioner  when  he  intends  to  file  a petition  becuase  of  the mandatory  provisions for  depositing  of  security  for  costs soon  after  the  filing  of  a petition.

      In  the  present  circumstances  all  the  respondents  have  sought  for  costs  upon  withdrawal  of  the  petition by  the  petitioner.   The  Petitioner averred  that  he  had  reached  an  understanding  with  the  1st  Respondent  to  forego  costs.  However  the  1st  respondent  in  his  replying  affidavit  sought  for  costs.   The  petitioner  was  given  leave  and  time  to  file  a further  affidavit  to  respond  to  the  1st  respondent’s  alleged regarding  of turnaround to  the  earlier  agreement.  However  no  such  further  affidavit  was filed  by  the  petitioner  and  hence  the  1st  respondents  claims  to  costs  remain  uncontroverted.

The court records shows that this matter has been contentious from the beginning upto the main trial. This court made several rulings along the way. All the parties participated in the trial and counsels finally filed submissions and were to take a date for judgement when the present application was filed. As per the provisions of section 84 of the Elections Act costs shall follow the event. Te event herein is the withdrawal of the petition. I find it would be unfair to deny the respondents costs yet they had been sued and they participated in the trial upto this juncture. The petitioner's plea that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents should not get costs as they are funded by the taxpayers is not convincing becauses the petitioner was one of those who had contested and was not just an ordinary voter who would assume the elective seat if he won and in any case such costs paid to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents would still revert back to the public coffers for use by the state and other organs towards provision of services to the citizenry.

Moreover the 3rd Respondent is a body corporate capable of suing and being sued it goes without saying that a lot of work has been put into the petition by counsels by the Respondents while defending the Respondents. The intensity of the work herein composed of preparing pleadings, research, submissions, and travelling to court for the hearing of the petition.

In the result I allow the petitioner's application to withdraw this petition and hereby order that the petition herein marked as withdrawn. All the three Respondents are awarded costs of the petition. A certificate of this determination in accordance with Section 86(1) of the Elections Act shall be issued to the Independent Electoral and boundaries commission and who shall then notify relevant speaker once the costs hereof have been assessed. As time to finalise this matter as stipulated by the constitution is coming to a close, I order the counsels herein to file other bills/ costs for taxation and or assessment within seven days from the date hereof and to be ready for assessment on the 14th Day of August, 2013.

Orders Accordingly.

Dated and delivered at Migori this day 7th Day of August 2013.

DAVID K. KEMEI

S.P.M