SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Njomo v Waithaka & 2 others (Election Petition Appeal (Application) E002 of 2023) [2023] KECA 753 (KLR) (22 June 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KECA 753 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
753
Citation
[2023] KECA 753 (KLR)
Decided
22 June 2023
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeElection Petition Appeal (Application)PostureRespondents seek to strike out the appeal for non-compliance with rule 27 of the Court of Appeal (Election Petition) Rules, 2017.CoramHA OMONDI, DR. K. I. LAIBUTA, JM MATIVO
Holding

The appellant has approached this Court with unclean hands and has blatantly disobeyed the court's orders requiring him to deposit security.

Facts

On 14th April, 2023, the High Court directed the appellant to deposit security for costs as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal. The appellant failed to comply, and the court granted the respondents liberty to apply for orders to strike out the appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant has failed to deposit security for costs as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal.
  2. Whether the respondents' application to strike out the appeal is self-executing.

Reasoning

The appellant failed to comply with the court's order to deposit security for costs, and his argument that he cannot pay the deposit until he obtains the certified proceedings and judgment is inconsistent with his persistent claim that he can only pay the deposit after filing the supplementary record of appeal.

Outcome

The appeal is struck out, and the record of appeal is also struck out with costs to the respondents.

Orders

  • The appellant is directed to deposit security for costs.
  • The appellant is directed to file and serve the response and written submissions by close of business on 6th June 2023.
  • The application be listed for hearing within three days hereof.

Remedies

  • Costs to the respondents.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case