John Mugambi Angaine v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commmission,Wario Ibrahim Ali R/O Buuri Constituency & Rindiki Mugambi Murwithania [2017] KEHC 1952 (KLR)

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