Amos Kimutai Birir v Hillary Kipyegon Bett & 2 others [2017] KEMC 14 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan election petition was struck out because the losing candidate never served it on respondents in time or paid the required Kshs. 100,000 security for costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the petition should be struck out for failure to serve it on the respondents within the time prescribed by the Petition Rules
- 2.Whether the petition should be struck out for failure to deposit security for costs of Kshs. 100,000 within 10 days of filing
Key legal issues
#Want of service of the petition
Service of an election petition is mandatory and failure to serve within 7 days of filing justifies striking out
Rule 10(1) requires service within seven days of filing by direct service or newspaper advertisement. The petition was filed on 23/8/2017 but served on the 1st respondent on 6/9/2017, beyond the stipulated period, and the 2nd and 3rd respondents were never served. The court relied on authority establishing that service underpins the right to a fair hearing and cannot be excused under Article 159(2)(d).
Failure to deposit security for costs
Failure to deposit Kshs. 100,000/= within 10 days of filing, as required by Rule 13 and Section 78(2)(c) of the Elections Act, is a substantive requirement that ousts the court's jurisdiction
Rule 13 requires deposit of security within 10 days of filing, Kshs. 100,000/= in the case of a petition against a member of a County Assembly. The petitioner never endeavoured to deposit the sum. Relying on Muriithi J.'s holding in Fatuma Zainabu Mohamed, security for costs goes to the root of jurisdiction, and non-compliance prohibits further proceedings.
Legal principles established
#- Service of an election petition is a mandatory requirement; a petition not served cannot proceed to hearing, and mere knowledge of it does not cure want of service
- Failure to deposit the statutory security for costs within the prescribed time ousts the court's jurisdiction to hear the petition
Court orders
#- 1.The petition dated 22/8/2017 struck out
- 2.Costs awarded to the respondents, capped at Kshs. 160,000/=, to be assessed for sharing between the two law firms for the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Elections Act, Sections 77 and 78; Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017, Rules 8, 10, 12, 13
Relief refused
#Prayer for recount, verification and scrutiny of votes
The petition was struck out at the interlocutory stage before hearing for want of service and failure to deposit security for costs
Prayers for declarations that the 1st respondent was not validly elected and that the petitioner be declared elected
The court's jurisdiction to entertain the petition was ousted by the petitioner's non-compliance with mandatory statutory requirements
Costs
Costs to the respondents, capped by the court at Kshs. 160,000/=, to be assessed for appropriate sharing between the two law firms for the parties (respondents)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Service of the petition is still a requirement under the Constitution, the Act and the Rules. Without service, the opposite party is denied the opportunity to defend the case.
the provisions for security for costs are, in my view, a substantive requirement underpinning the jurisdiction of the court to deal with the dispute in the proceeding in which the security for costs is required
On the premise of the holding by the courts on the fundamental issues hereinabove, I hereby strike out the petition dated 22/ 8 / 2017 with costs to the respondents.
The petition has been concluded at this interlocutory stage, i cap costs at kshs. 160,000/=. The same to be assessed for appropriate sharing between the two law firms for the parties herein.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the dates stated for filing of the petition
Hearing dates given as 2015 instead of 2017
The judgment is described as a judgment/ruling but is labelled 'Ruling delivered in open court'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Amos Kimutai Birir v Hillary Kipyegon Bett & 2 others [2017] KEMC 14 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Election Petition No. 1 of 2017 (Kericho). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kemc/2017/14/eng@2017-11-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.