Mwangi Kimwele Mwangi Kimwele,Said Mangale Kombo Juma Athuman Lubambo,Juma Athuman Lubambo,Charles Mwadime Kiridia & Humphrey Kalama Fondoson v Kibwana Saleh Baya,Neema Karisa & Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission [2013] KEMC 83 (KLR)

REPUBLIC  OF KENYA

INTHE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT ATMOMBASA

ELECTION PETITIONCASENO. 2 OF 2013

1. MWANGI KIMWELE

2. SAID MANGALE KOMBO JUMA ATHUMAN LUBAMBO

3. JUMA ATHUMAN LUBAMBO

4. CHARLES MWADIME KIRIDIA

5. HUMPHREY KALAMA FONDOSON……………......................................PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1. KIBWANASALEH BAYA

2. NEEMA KARISA

3. INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL & BOUNDARIESCOMMISSION……..RESPONDENTS

RULING

On 22. 7.2013, Mr. Lumatete  counsel   for  the  petitioner  indicated  that he  was  unable  to  trace  the  3rd  petitioner, Juma  Athumani  Lubambo who  was said  to  have taken up employment outside Mombasa. He could also not avail other witnesses.

Mr.  Buti objected to the possibility  that affidavits  of  the  3rd petitioner and  that  of  the  remaining  witnesses  being  admitted  in  evidence.He argued  that  as  a  petitioner  the  3rd  petitioner is  a  mandatory witness as  per   rule 10  (3)  (b),  Rules 11  (1) and 12  (1) of  the  elections (parliamentary  and  county  elections petition Rules  2013.

Miss Ngugi for the 2nd and 3rd petitioners associated herself withMr. Butis position.

I will first consider the position of the 3rd petitioner who is said to be unavailable. As  the one  of  the   petitioner  the  3rd  petitioner  is hereby  a  mandatory  witness  whose  evidence  is subject  to it being cross-examined by  the respondents. So he must first testify in court.  On the other witnesses. Rule 12(1) of the Election Rules states.

"A petitioner at the time of filling the petition. File an affidavit sworn by each witness whom the petitioner intends to call at the trial.

The term calling  a witness means  availing  him/her for the purposes of being  cross  - examined  and  if  need  be  re-examined.So  that  they can  expound  or  clarify  on  a substance  of facts that  are  contained  in the  affidavit      This   is  very important   especially  on  the contested issues.

In the case of Peter Gichuki Kurigar  versus independent Electoral

Boundaries Commission and 2 others [2013]eKLR HC Nyeri Election petition no. 3/13.

The court had this to say on Rule 12(1) above

"It is   apparent from this   rule  that it is only those affidavits for witnesses that  the petitioner intends to call that  are  relevant.I is logical that an affidavit  of a person  the petitioner has no intention of calling  as witness is  irrelevant  and  has no  place  under  rule  12  (1) of the rules. I have not found any other place in the rules where suchan affidavit can fit. Without   the  requisite   legal  backing such an affidavit  would be  a strange  document to  the petition and  would  not form part  of  the  record  of  the trial contemplated  under  rule  12(2)  (c) further to admit affidavits which have  not  been tested on Cross­ examination  would therefore highly prejudice the respondent  where adverse allegations  have  been made.

I therefore  order  that  the petition as by 3rd  petitioner who is unable to come to court to be cross-examined and  re-examined  by  counsel

Cannot stand on just documents.It has not been proved and for this

reason I hereby  dismiss   the  3rd   petitioner petition as against  the respondent with costs to the respondents. I also consequently order the affidavits of

Musiwa  Hassan  Ali

Victor Musee  Owino

Riwa  Mwangolo be expunged from the  records.

J.  Gandani-SPM

29/7/2013

Read in Open court this 29. 7.2013 1n the presence of Mr.Buli Mr. Luma tete and Miss Ngugi

Before J. Gandani -SPM

Court clerk Jebel

Buti

For  our  case    I have  2  witnesses.suggest  we proceed   on

31/7/2013

J. Gandani -SPM

2917/2013

Lumatete

We can take 2 days.

Ngugi

No objection

Court

Hearing on 31/7/2013 at 11. 00  a.m and 1. 8.2013 at 9. 00 a.m.