Esther Chelimo, Veronica Kimoi Kimitei & Maryline Jerono Koima v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, Jubilee Party, Charles Bowen, Purity Tallam, Cherutich Francisca Jepkuto, Saphina Chelagat, Kiptala Jeruto, Kakerel Eunice Chepranyei, Cherus Maureen Jepkosgei, Caroline Chebichii Kessei, Francisca Jepsergon Cheburet, Diana Siriti & Kenya African National Union [2017] KEMC 1 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT  KABARNET

ELECTION  PETITION  NO.  1  OF 2017

ESTHER  CHELIMO...................................................................1ST  PETITIONER

VERONICA  KIMOI  KIMITEI ......................................................2ND PETITIONER

MARYLINE  JERONO KOIMA ..................................................3RD PETITIONER

VERSUS

THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND

BOUNDARIES COMMISSION.................................................1ST RESPONDENT

JUBILEE  PARTY......................................................................2ND RESPONDENT

CHARLES  BOWEN................................................................3RD RESPONDENT

PURITY  TALLAM...................................................................4TH RESPONDENT

CHERUTICH  FRANCISCA JEPKUTO..................................5TH RESPONDENT

SAPHINA  CHELAGAT............................................................6TH  RESPONDENT

KIPTALA JERUTO.................................................................7TH  RESPONDENT

KAKEREL EUNICE  CHEPRANYEI.......................................8TH RESPONDENT

CHERUS  MAUREEN JEPKOSGEI ......................................9TH RESPONDENT

CAROLINE  CHEBICHII KESSEI.........................................10TH RESPONDENT

FRANCISCA  JEPSERGON  CHEBURET...........................11TH RESPONDENT

DIANA  SIRITI.......................................................................12TH RESPONDENT

KENYA  AFRICAN  NATIONAL  UNION...........................13TH  RESPONDENT

RULING

I have  had a chance  to peruse  the filed  amended  petition  that is  on record.

I have  no  reason  to refuse  the withdrawal  of the amended  petition  as it was filed  without  leave and out of time.

The respondents  who were  brought  in as number 14-18 were  not served  as there is  no evidence  to that effect  and the advocate  for  the  4-12  petitioner  cannot  purport to be  on record  for the  14-18 respondents  without  notice to that  effect.

I thus  allow  the petitioner  advocates  application  for withdrawal  of the amended  petition  with  no  orders to cost.

The matter  to proceed  as agreed for directions.

S.O. TEMU [PM]

07. 10. 2017