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

Buyu v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 40 of 2013) [2024] KECA 693 (KLR) (21 June 2024) (Ruling)

[2024] KECA 693 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
693
Citation
[2024] KECA 693 (KLR)
Decided
21 June 2024
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from a judgment dismissing an election petitionCoramJoel Ngugi
Holding

The references are partly successful, and the matter is remanded back to the Taxing Master for reconsideration on instruction fees, cross-appeal costs, VAT, disbursements, and interest on costs.

Facts

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission declared the 3rd respondent the duly elected member of the National Assembly for Kisumu West Constituency. The appellant challenged the declaration in the High Court and on a second appeal to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal with costs.

Issues

  1. instruction fees awarded by the Taxing Master
  2. cross-reference of costs
  3. disbursements over which respondents did not produce receipts

Reasoning

The Court found the appellant's complaint about the instruction fees to be valid, but the respondents' argument about disbursements over which they did not produce receipts was also correct. The Court ruled that the respondents are entitled to interest on the taxed costs.

Outcome

Each party partially succeeded, and each shall bear their own costs.

Orders

  • Remand the matter back to the Taxing Master for reconsideration on instruction fees, cross-appeal costs, VAT, disbursements, and interest on costs

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Evidence Act
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