Atp 100 - C

ORIGINATING SUMMONS (ORDER 37)
1. INTRODUCTION:
 The most common way of approaching the Court is by way of ‘plaint.’ ‘Originating summons method’ is
less common and is only used where:
a) the Civil Procedure Rules provide for it; or
b) some other Statutes especially permit the method of approaching the Court; or
c) a dispute is concerned with matters of law and it is unlikely to be a substantial dispute of fact;
d) the matter is simple and straight forward.
 The ‘Originating summons method’ is a shortened version of a Plaint which is intended for simpler, shorter
and speedier process.
 Usually when a party approaches the Court with Originating Summons [hereinafter referred to OS], there
are: a) no witnesses, and b) evidence is by way of Affidavit. Besides, the question for determination by the
Court is raised directly in the summons.
 The ‘issues’ are raised in a concise manner but with sufficient particulars to enable the Court identify them
and the course of action. The ‘remedy or relief sought’ is also stated clearly therein.
 Usually proceedings in the High Court are commenced by an OS.
2. MEANING OF THE TERM ‘ORIGINATING SUMMONS’:
 OS according to Lexicon is “a document which formally begins a legal case where people agree on the
facts, but need a Judge to decide on the meaning of a law, contract, or other document.”1
3. TYPES OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS:
There are three types of OS:
a) Plenary summons: It is used to commence proceedings where there is a real dispute between the parties
and/or the amount of the plaintiff's claim is not specific or easy to calculate. When a plenary summons is
issued, the next step is for the parties to exchange pleadings. Eventually, the case is given a date for a trial
and there may be evidence given by witnesses.
b) Summary summons: It is used when the amount of the plaintiff's claim is easily quantifiable and the
defendant does not have any valid defence. For e.g., a summary summons may be used where the plaintiff
claims that they lent the defendant a specific amount of money that has not been repaid. It is a fast-track
procedure where the Judge decides the case after reading affidavits submitted by both sides.
c) Special summons: It is used for cases that involve pure issues of law or very specific issues of fact. For e.g.,
a special summons can be issued to commence a claim relating to the administration of the estate of a
deceased person. Like summary proceedings, this is a fast-track procedure where the Judge decides the case
by reading affidavits submitted by both sides.
4. CONTENTS OF AN ORIGINATING SUMMONS:
All OS must contain the following information:
a) Title: The plaintiff and defendant's names make up the title of the proceedings;
1
Lexicon, “Definition of Originating Summon”, http://markets.ft.com/research/Lexicon/Term?term=originating-summons, [accessed on 2nd June
2017].
Dr. Ratemo Tom
Kenyatta University School of Law, Parklands, Nairobi.
1
b) The type of the summons to be issued: for e.g., plenary summons;
c) Description of parties: The summons must state the surname, first name, the residence or place of business,
occupation of the plaintiff, and the name and address of the defendants (or their solicitor);
d) An endorsement of claim: This is the part of the summons that sets out what the plaintiff claims to be
entitled to.
e) Costs: They should not be requested for in an OS.
f) They should have warnings attached to it at the end: For e.g., “NOTE: If you do not enter appearance….”
g) Signature: It is signed by an advocate who works for the applicant or the applicant himself.
5. ORIGINATING SUMMONS: PROVISIONS UNDER THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES:
a) Who may take out OS and in respect of what matters? Under Order 37, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure
Rules, 2010, the following are authorized to take OS:
i. Executors or administrators of a deceased person’s estate/trust, or any of them; 2
ii. Trustees under any deed or instrument, or any of them;
iii. Any person claiming to be interested in the relief sought as creditor, devisee, 3 legatee,4 heir, or legal
representative of a deceased person, or as cestui que trust5 under the terms of any deed or instrument,
or as claiming by assignment, or otherwise, under any such creditor or other person as aforesaid.
b) Matters to be taken out in OS: OS are returnable before a Judge sitting in chambers for the determination
of the following questions:
i. any question affecting the rights or interest of the person claiming to be creditor, devisee, legatee, heir
or cestui que trust;
ii. the ascertainment of any class of creditors, devisees, legatees, heirs, or others;
iii. the furnishing of any particular accounts by the executors, administrators or trustees, and the vouching,
when necessary, of such accounts;
iv. the payment into Court of any money in the hands of the executors, administrators or trustees;
v. directing the executors, administrators or trustees to do, or abstain from doing, any particular act in
their character as executors, administrators or trustees;
vi. the approval of a sale, purchase, compromise or other transaction;
vii. the determination of any question arising directly out of the administration of the estate or trust.
c) Summons by vendor or purchaser of land: Under Order 37, Rule 3, a vendor or purchaser of immovable
property or their representatives respectively may, at any time, take out an OS returnable before the judge
sitting in chambers, for the determination of any question which may arise in respect of: a) any
requisitions6 or objections, or b) any claim for compensation; or c) any other question arising out of or
connected with the contract of sale of property. It can however be noted that such summons cannot be
obtained in case of any question affecting the existence or validity of the contract of sale.
2
See, Order 37, R.2, the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
3
‘Devisee’ is a person who receives a gift of real property by a will.
4
‘Legatee’ is a person who receives personal property through a will.
5
‘Cestui que trust’ is a French term meaning a beneficiary of a trust.
6
‘Requisition’ is an official order laying claim to the use of property or materials.
Dr. Ratemo Tom
2
d) Summons by a mortgagee, mortgagor and others: Order 37, Rule 4 specifically provides that: a) any
mortgagee7 or mortgagor, whether legal or equitable, or b) any person entitled to or having property subject
to a legal or equitable charge, or c) any person having the right to foreclose or redeem any mortgage, 8
whether legal or equitable, may take out as of course an OS. Such summons must be returnable before the
Judge in chambers, for such relief of the nature or kind following as may be by the summons specified, and
as the circumstances of the case may require; that is to say, sale, foreclosure, delivery of possession by the
mortgagor, redemption, reconveyance, delivery of possession by the mortgagee.
e) Caveats9: Order 37, Rule 5 requires all applications under Section 116 of the Government Lands Act, Cap.
280, or Section 57 of the Registration of Titles Act, Cap. 281 to be made by OS unless there is pending a
suit involving the same lands when the application is made by summons in that suit.
f) Extension of limitation period: Order 37, Rule 6, requires an application under Section 27 of the
Limitation of Actions Act made before filing a suit to be made ex parte by OS supported by an affidavit.
g) Adverse possession: Order 37, Rule 7, requires an application under Section 38 of the Limitation of
Actions Act to be made by OS supported by an affidavit to which a certified extract of the title to the land in
question has been annexed. In this regard, the Court directs on whom and in what manner the summons
shall be served.
h) Application under the Registered Land Act: Order 37, Rule 8 provides that, an application under the
Registered Land Act, Cap. 300 other than under Sections 120, 128, 133, 138, 143 and 150 thereof, are to be
made by OS unless there is pending a suit involving the same lands when the application is made in that
suit.
i) Application under Chattels Transfer Act: Order 37, Rule 9 provides that an application under Section 9
of the Chattels Transfer Act, Cap. 28 must be made by OS ex parte supported by an affidavit setting out the
grounds relied upon. “Chattels” means any movable property that can be completely transferred by
delivery, and includes machinery, stock and the natural increase of stock, crops and wool. 10
j) Summons by a member of a partnership: Under Order 37, Rule 10, when the existence of a partnership,
or the right to a partnership, or the fact of the dissolution thereof, is not in dispute, any partner in a firm or
his representatives may take out an OS returnable before the Judge sitting in chambers against his partners
or former partners or their representatives (if any) for the purpose of having the partnership dissolved (if it
be still subsisting) and for the purpose of taking the accounts of and winding up such partnership.
k) Summons by persons interested in deeds or wills: Under Order 37, Rule 11, any person claiming to be
interested under a deed, will, or other written instrument, may apply in chambers by OS for the
determination of any question of construction arising under the instrument, and for a declaration of the
rights of the person interested.
7
‘Mortgagee’ is the lender in a mortgage, typically a bank, building society, or savings and loan association.
8
‘Mortgage’ is a legal agreement by which a bank, building society, etc., lends money at interest in exchange for taking title of the debtor's
property, with the condition that the conveyance of title becomes void upon the payment of the debt.
9
‘Caveat (warning/caution)’ is a notice, especially in a probate, that certain actions may not be taken without informing the person who gave the
notice. In other words, it is a formal notice filed by an interested party requesting postponement of a Court proceeding or other action until the
filer is heard.
10
S.2, the Chattels Transfer Act, Cap. 28.
Dr. Ratemo Tom
3
l) Variation of trusts: Under Order 37, Rule 12, an application for an order under the Trustee Act must be
made by OS returnable before the Judge sitting in chambers; and the settler and any other person who
provided property for the purposes of the trusts in question shall, if still alive and not an applicant and
unless a Judge for special reasons otherwise directs, be made a respondent to summons in addition to any
other persons who are necessary and proper respondents thereto.
m) Forms: Under Order 37, Rule 14, an OS must be: a) in Form No. 26 or No. 27 of Appendix A with such
variations as circumstances may require, b) prepared by the applicant or his advocate, c) shall be filed in
Court, and d) service where necessary must be effected in accordance with Order 5.
n) Originating summons to be filed and registered: Order 37, Rule 15 provides that the OS must be filed
and entered in the Register of Suits but only after the serial number the letters “O.S.” is placed to
distinguish it from plaints filed in ordinary suits.
o) Directions: Order 37, Rule 16 requires the Registrar, within 30 days of filing of the OS and with notice to
the parties, to list the summons for directions before a Judge in chambers.
p) Evidence and directions upon hearing of summons: Order 37, Rule 18 provides that at the time of
directions, if the parties do not agree to the correctness and sufficiency of the facts set forth in the summons
and affidavit, the Judge may order the summons to be supported by such further evidence as he may deem
necessary, and may give such directions as he may think just for the trial of any issues arising thereupon,
and may make any amendments necessary to make the summons accord with existing facts, and to raise the
matters in issue between the parties.
q) Procedure: Order 37, Rule 17 lays down that the day and hour of attendance under an OS to which an
appearance is required to be entered must, after appearance, be fixed for hearing in chambers of the judge
to whom such summons is assigned.
r) Powers of Court upon hearing of summons: Under Order 37, Rule 19, where it appears to the Court at
any stage of the proceedings that the proceedings should for any reason be continued as if the cause had
begun by filing a plaint, it may order the proceedings to continue as if the cause had been so begun and
may, in particular, order that any affidavits filed shall stand as pleadings, with or without liberty to any of
the parties to add to, or to apply for particulars of, those affidavits.
s) Court may make orders as to costs incurred by any party: Under Order 37, Rule 20, if an OS is
adjourned into the Court, the Judge may, if he deems the question to be determined is of sufficient
importance, order that the costs be taxed on the scale applicable to suits. In all other cases, the Judge may
make such orders as to the costs of the parties as he considers just.
6. PROCEDURE: IN SUMMARY:
 From the above rules, it is evident that a person should apply using OS for anything to do with:
a) the Government Lands Act but, where there is a pending suit Chamber Summons is used;
b) agreements for sale or purchase of immoveable property but only in cases where the existence or
validity of such an agreement is not in dispute;
c) sale, foreclosure, delivery of possession by the mortgagor, redemption, reconveyance and delivery
of possession by the mortgagee;
Dr. Ratemo Tom
4
d) application for extension of time under the rules of Limitations Act;
e) application for land ownership by virtue of adverse possession;
f) when applying for a file to be reconstructed;
g) application under the Advocates Act, Cap 16;
h) interpretation of statutes.
 Once OS is prepared, it is filed in the same way as a Plaint. The Registrar will file it after indicating the
words (O.S) at the end of the case number.
 Within 30 days of filing, the Registrar will notify the parties that it has been filed. The matter will then be
listed before a Judge for purposes of giving further directions on the way forward.
 There is usually no need to enter an appearance in OS matters. But, in certain circumstances it must be
responded to by way of entering appearance. For e.g., where there is likely to be a dispute in a matter, the
parties may appear before the Court to seek direction and resolution especially a party disputing.
 Oral evidence is not required at the hearing of an OS as it is usually supported by an affidavit.
 If the matter however becomes complicated, the Judge can direct for further evidence to be entered either
orally or further affidavits. 11 If this does not work, the Judge can direct for the matter to be converted into a
normal proceeding as if the matter had been began by plaint. If this is directed, Order 1112 of the Civil
Procedure Rules will then be applied.
7. ILLUSTRATION:
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL SUIT No. 1523 OF 2005
IN THE MATTER OF THE LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ACT (Statute)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LAND PARCELS REFERENCE No. 196/XX (Issue)
BETWEEN
KAMLESH PAKORE …………………………………………………… Plaintiff
AND
NJOROGE KARIUKI ………………………………………………… Defendant
ORIGINATING SUMMONS
(Under Sections 17, 18, 37, and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 and Order 36, Rule 3D
of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and all other enabling provisions of the law)13
Let NJOROGE KARIUKI of Post Office Box 24990 – 00502, Nairobi within 15 days after service of this
summons on him enter appearance to this summons which is issued on the application of KAMLESH
11
Order 37, R.18, the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
12
Pre-trial directions and conferences.
13
The enabling Section of the law in every O.S. and C.S are cited because the Court has to straight away know that it is allowed by the statutes.
Dr. Ratemo Tom
5
PAKORE who claims to have acquired Land Reference No. 196/XX hereinafter called the suit land for
ORDERS THAT:
1. The Plaintiff be declared the legal owner entitled by adverse possession of over twelve (12) years since
1989 ALL THAT parcel of land comprised in Title No. LR No. 196/XX situated in Nairobi.
2. The said Plaintiff be registered as the sole proprietor of the said parcel of land namely, LR No. 196/XX in
place of the Respondent in whose favour the land is currently registered.
3. The last original indentures in respect of LR No. 196/XX which is with the Respondent be dispensed with.
4. Costs of this application be provided for.
Dated at Nairobi this ……… day of ………. 2005.
ASIEMA & CO. ADVOCATES

ADVOCATES FOR THE PLAINTIFF
DRAWN & FILED BY

OCCIDENTAL PLAZA, 4TH FLOOR, MUTHITHI ROAD,
P. O. BOX 11789 – 00400,
NAIROBI
TO BE SERVED UPON
NJOROGE KARIUKI,
TIMES TOWERS, HAILLE SELASIE AVENUE,
P.O. BOX 48240,
NAIROBI
NOTE: If the Respondent does not enter an appearance within the time above mentioned such order may be
made and proceedings taken as the Court may think just and expedient.)
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
CIVIL SUIT No. 1523 OF 2005
IN THE MATTER OF THE LIMITATION OF ACTIONS ACT
AND
IN THE MATTER OF LAND PARCELS REFERENCE No. 196/XX
BETWEEN
KAMLESH PAKORE …………………………………………………… Plaintiff
AND
NJOROGE KARIUKI ………………………………………………… Defendant
Dr. Ratemo Tom
6
SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT
I, KAMLESH PAKORE, of P. O. Box 24990 - 00502, Nairobi, residing on House No. 287, Dagoretti road,
Karen, Nairobi within the Republic of Kenya do hereby make oath and state as follows:
1. THAT I am the plaintiff herein with the knowledge of the facts in issue hence competent to swear this
affidavit.
2. THAT I have been living on land parcel known as LR No. 196/XX House No. 287, Dagoretti road, Karen,
Nairobi with my wife and children since August 1989.
3. THAT The Defendant is the registered proprietor of the suit land. (I attach hereto and mark AR – 1 a true
certified copy of the title deed to the suit land.)
4. THAT I learnt of the existence of the said land in 1989 through one Simonson who was the Defendant’s
next door neighbor.
5. THAT Mr. Simonson informed me, which information I verily believed to be true that the Defendant had
vacated the suit land sometime in 1970’s and left Kenya with his wife to settle in the United Kingdom of
Britain as he and his wife both held British Nationalities.
6. THAT to the best of my knowledge, neither the Defendant nor his wife has ever come back to Kenya since
they left to settle and make their future in Britain.
7. THAT in the interim I paid up all the utility bills inclusive of water, electricity, telephone and land rates. (I
annex and make the same as AR-2).
8. THAT in addition to paying all the utility bills I have continuously maintained the dwelling house, the
grounds, the boundary fence and all other facilities on the premises to a reasonable habitable standard all at
my own cost.
9. THAT my family and I have enjoyed uninterrupted continual possession of the said property since August
1989.
10. THAT I pray to the Honourable Court to declare me the legal owner entitled by adverse possession of over
twelve (12) years since 1989.
11. THAT the facts deponed herein are true to the best of my knowledge.
SWORN AT NAIROBI )
By the said KAMLESH PAKORE ) …………………………………..
This …….. day of ……… 2005 ) Deponent
)
BEFORE ME )
)
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS )
DRAWN & FILED BY

OCCIDENTAL PLAZA, 4TH FLOOR, MUTHITHI ROAD,
Dr. Ratemo Tom
7
P. O. BOX 11789 – 00400,
NAIROBI
TO BE SERVED UPON
NJOROGE KARIUKI,
TIMES TOWERS, HAILLE SELASIE AVENUE,
P.O. BOX 48240,
NAIROBI
INTER-PLEADER PROCEEDINGS (SECTION 58 and ORDER 34)
1. INTRODUCTION:
 Inter-pleader refers to a type of action in which several different parties claim ownership to a fund or
property that is in the control of another.
 For instance, ‘A’ is holding property which ‘B’ and ‘C’ are both claiming but are unwilling to go to Court
to have their rights determined. Therefore, ‘A’ goes to Court to determine the rightful owner of the
property, or
 ‘B’ a buyer buys land from ‘V’ a vendor and ‘A’ an advocate is acting for both of them. ‘A’ holds the
purchase price as a stakeholder. In the process, ‘V’ finds another buyer whom he sells land to and, at the
same time, he wants the money ‘A’ is holding. In such circumstances, both ‘B’ and ‘V’ claim they have the
right to the purchase price. ‘A’ will go to Court and have the matter interpleaded.
 Kamau’s property is about to be attached. Kamau’s wife claims to have acquired the property due to be
attached they. To determine the rightful owner of the property, the person intending to attach may proceed
to Court.
 Where an insurance company is ready to pay money and two persons come up and claim that they own a
car under dispute, the insurance company will come up with an inter-pleader suit to determine the real
owner of the car before payment.
 Similarly, in cases of compulsory land acquisition, the Government may be ready to pay compensation but
it doesn’t know whom to pay as many owners claim the property. It will be therefore be interpleaded.
 Inter-pleader proceedings are filed in Court for purposes of inter-pleading between the adverse claimants.
2. PROCEDURE FOR FILING INTER-PLEADER PROCEEDINGS:
The procedure for filing inter-pleader proceedings is as follows:
a) Practice under this Order: Order 34, Rule 1 provides that an application for inter-pleader proceedings is
by way of Originating Summons unless made in a pending suit in which case it shall be made by
Interlocutory Summons in the suit.
Where there is a pending suit but which is not necessarily against the person holding the property, Section
58 can be adopted to bring the suit by way of Notice of Motion. Order 34 clashes with Section 58 and so
Section 58 overrides the other.
b) Averments to be proved by applicant: Section 58 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 and Order 34, Rule
2 provides that an applicant for inter-pleader proceedings must first satisfy the Court that:
Dr. Ratemo Tom
8
a) s/he is a neutral party;
b) the claims are for debts, sum of money or other property, movable or immovable;
c) s/he claims no interest in the subject matter in dispute other than for charges or costs for bringing the
action;
d) there’s no collusion between him and any of the parties;
e) s/he is willing to pay or transfer into the Court the subject matter, or to dispose it as the Court may
order.
f) s/he is making an application, for the sole purpose of protecting him/herself from damages as a result
of his/her action in relation to either of the two claimants;
g) claimant must be ready to deal with the subject matter in whatever manner the Court directs.
c) Stay of suit: Order 34, Rule 3 provides that if the application is made by a defendant in a suit the Court
may stay all further proceedings in the suit.
d) Order upon summons: Order 34, Rule 4 provides that if the claimants appear in pursuance of the
summons, the Court may order either that any claimant be made a defendant in any suit already
commenced in respect of the subject matter in dispute in lieu of or in addition to the applicant, or that an
issue between the claimants be stated and tried, and in the latter case may direct which of the claimants is to
be plaintiff and which defendant.
e) Summary procedure: Order 34, Rule 5 provides that the Court may, with the consent of both claimants, or
on the request of any claimant, if, having regard to the value of the subject-matter in dispute, it seems
desirable to do so, dispose of the merits of their claims, and decide the same in a summary manner and on
such terms as may be just.
f) Costs and other orders: Order 34, Rule 6 provides that the Court may make all such orders as are just and
reasonable as to costs and all other matters including, where appropriate, orders for the sale or disposal of
the subject-matter of the dispute, and where an order for costs is in favour of the applicant the Court may
give him a charge over the subject-matter.
g) Order upon a claimant’s failure to appear: Order 34, Rule 7 provides that if a claimant, having been
duly served with a summons calling him to appear and maintain or relinquish his claim, does not appear in
pursuance of the summons, or having appeared neglects or refuses to comply with any order made after his
appearance, the Court may make an order declaring him and all persons claiming under him forever barred
against the applicant, and persons claiming under him, but the order shall not affect the rights of the
claimants as between themselves, provided that no order shall be made against the Government except
upon an application by summons served not less than 7 days before the return day.
h) Questions of law: Order 34, Rule 8 provides that where the question in issue is a question of law and no
facts are disputed, the Court may decide the question without the trial of an issue.
i) Adverse title of claimants: Order 34, Rule 9 provides that the applicant may be granted relief
notwithstanding the fact that the titles of the claimants have not a common origin but are adverse to and
independent of one another.
3. ORDERS THE COURT CAN MAKE:
Dr. Ratemo Tom
9
The Court has wide powers. It can make the following orders:
a) Dismiss the application if grounds are not satisfied;
b) If the claimants fail to attend Court, it will dismiss the matter and make orders that the claimants forever
keep their peace (barred for good against making claims against the holder of the property).
c) If the claimants appear, the Court can have a summary dismissal of the matter without having to hear
evidence if only the parties agree.
d) Court can transfer the proceedings to the Magistrates Court as long as the matter is within the jurisdiction
of the Magistrate’s Court.
e) The High Court may order that the proceedings be transferred to be dealt with under the arbitration process.
f) Court can refer the matter for examination of accounts to an appointed referee.
g) Order substitution or addition of a claimant.
h) Order that issues be stated, framed and tried.
NOTICE OF MOTION
1. Introduction: The objective of a notice of motion is to provide an easy and speedy procedure for seeking a
relief from the Court. It is similar to an Originating Summons in its contents.
2. Procedure: Order 51, Rule 1 provides that all applications to the Court shall be by notice of motion and
shall be heard in open Court unless the Court directs the hearing to be conducted in chambers or unless the
rules expressly provide.
3. Contents of notice: Order 51, Rule 4 provides that every notice of motion shall contain:
a) title;
b) a concise statement of the nature of the claim and orders;
c) grounds of the application;
d) the relief or remedy sought;
e) where any motion is grounded on evidence by affidavit, a copy of any affidavit intended to be used
shall be served;
f) signature of the applicant or his advocate who is preparing it;
g) a warnings at the bottom.
4. Examples of where a notice of motion is used: It can be used in application for:
a) orders for judgment on admission;
b) summary judgment;
c) stay of proceedings;
d) lifting of an injunction, variation or discharge of it;
e) release orders e.g., habeus corpus order;
f) a matter to be settled out of Court on behalf of persons with disability;
g) substantive application for judicial review;
h) burial disputes;
i) certain Constitutional Applications
j) one to be fined or imprisoned for contempt of Court proceedings (contempt exversie curiae)
Dr. Ratemo Tom
10
All these Applications can be made ex parte although the Court is usually reluctant to issue ex parte
orders. A party is therefore expected to serve the other party with a Notice of Motion.
5. ILLUSTRATION:
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
ELC NO. ……… OF 2014
JOHN OTIENO OBADE & 299 OTHERS ………………… APPLICANT
VERSUS
TERESIA WAIRIMU KIRIMA and ANNE WANGARI KIRIMA sued as administrators of the Estate of
the Gerishon Kamau Kirima ……….….. RESPONDENT
NOTICE OF MOTION
(Under Order 40, Rule 1 & 2 the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and all other enabling provisions of the Law)
TAKE NOTICE that on the ………. day of ………. 2014, this Honourable Court will be moved on the
…….. day of …….. 2015 at 9.00 O'clock in the forenoon or as soon thereafter by the Applicant for
ORDERS:
1. THAT this application be certified as urgent.
2. THAT this Honorable court be pleased to issue a temporary injunction restraining the Respondents
either by themselves, beneficiaries, agents, servants and/or employees from evicting, alienating,
disposing, demolishing, trespassing and or in any other way interfering with the Applicants’ enjoyment
and/or possession of the 80 acres part of LR No. 6825/2 otherwise known as Kirima Njiru Farm in
Njiru area Nairobi currently occupied by the Applicants pending the hearing and determination of this
application.
3. THAT the leave so granted do operate as a stay of continuation of proceedings
4. THAT the costs of this application be provided for.
WHICH APPLICATION is further grounded following and the affidavit of JOHN OTIENO OBADE
annexed hereto and on such other grounds as may be adduced at the hearing hereof.
Dated at Nairobi this ……… day of ……… 2014.
(Signature is very important)

OJIENDA AND COMPANY
ADVOCATES FOR THE APPLICANTS
(Signature is very important)

DRAWN & FILED BY:
OJIENDA & COMPANY ADVOCATES,
VIEWPARK TOWERS, UHURU HIGHWAY,
P.O. BOX 17245-00100,
NAIROBI.
TO BE SERVED UPON:
TERESIA WAIRIMU KIRIMA, and ANNE WANGARI KIRIMA sued as the administrators of the Estate
of Gerishon Kamau Kirima.
Dr. Ratemo Tom

11
NOTE: If any party served does not appear at the time and place above-mentioned such order will be made
and proceedings taken as the court may think just and expedient.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
ELC NO. ……… OF 2014
JOHN OTIENO OBADE & 299 OTHERS ………………… APPLICANT
VERSUS
TERESIA WAIRIMU KIRIMA and ANNE WANGARI KIRIMA sued as administrators of the Estate of
the Gerishon Kamau Kirima ……….….. RESPONDENT
I, JOHN OTIENO OBADE, resident of House No. 24, Kitusuri, of P.O. Box No. 57247-00470 Nairobi, in
the Republic of Kenya, do hereby make oath and state as follows:
1. THAT I am the Applicant herein and have full knowledge and information concerning this suit and the
authority of the other members to swear this affidavit on their, and my own, behalf.
2. THAT I have the authority of the members whose names appear in the annexed schedule herein to sue
on their behalf and on my own behalf.
3. THAT the Respondents in this suit are being sued in their representative capacity on their own behalf
and on behalf of the Estate of the Late Gerishon Kamau Kirima. Annexed hereto and marked as
“JOO1” is a true copy of Grant of Letters of Administration issued on 30 th Dec 2013.
4. THAT Applicants have at all material times in over 14 years been the occupiers of 80acres being part
of property L.R. No. 6825/2, the suit property uninterrupted, exclusive and or continuous and
accordingly, the Applicants have acquired a rightful title by way of adverse possession.
5. THAT the Applicants have since made enormous developments to the said 80 acres of the suit
property as residential and/or commercial buildings. Annexed hereto and marked as “JOO2” are the
photos of the said developments.
6. THAT what is deponed hereinabove is true to the best of my knowledge save as to matters deponed to
on information sources whereof have been disclosed.
SWORN at NAIROBI by the said ]
JOHN OTIENO OBADE ] ...........................
This ……… day of ………. 2014 ] DEPONENT
]
BEFORE ME ]
]
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS ]
DRAWN & FILED BY:

OJIENDA & COMPANY ADVOCATES,
Dr. Ratemo Tom

12
VIEWPARK TOWERS, UHURU HIGHWAY,
P.O. BOX 17245-00100,
NAIROBI.
TO BE SERVED UPON: TERESIA WAIRIMU KIRIMA, and ANNE WANGARI KIRIMA sued as the
administrators of the Estate of Gerishon Kamau Kirima.
CHAMBER SUMMONS
1. INTRODUCTION:
 Chamber summons is an application done within a suit seeking orders that can be for instance, preservatory
or interim in nature pending the hearing of a suit.
 Order 53, Rule I avers that no judicial review proceedings can commence unless leave has been granted in
accordance with the said rule.
 Applications by way of Chamber Summons are used when seeking certain orders within a pending suit and
must be brought and sought under a specific rule.
 Chamber Summons was historically heard in chambers thus the name Chamber Summons.
 Service is of the essence.
 The Courts cannot grant ex parte orders unless it has heard both sides. However, if it is an urgent matter
and irreparable harm will be occasioned, the Court can grant the order ex Parte after hearing one side.
 An ex parte order is only granted upon the undertaking by the party that s/he shall file a substantive suit
and/or serve the other side within a period specified by the Court.
 Every Chamber Summons shall state in general terms the grounds of the application usually supported by
evidence in an affidavit.
 Application is heard in Chambers and may be transferred to open Court or vice versa as the Judge may
deem convenient.
 Where the application has been made, the respondent is required to file and serve the applicant with an
affidavit and a statement of the grounds upon which s/he will oppose applicant’s application.
2. WHERE CHAMBER SUMMONS CAN BE ADOPTED:
a) Application to add, or strike out, or substitute a plaintiff or defendant: It can be made to the court at any
time before trial, or at the trial of the suit in a summary manner.14
b) Application for third-party proceedings against the Government. 15
c) Application for leave to enter judgment against the Government. 16
d) Applications to submit further information of pleadings by the plaintiff.17
e) Applications under Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.18
f) Applications for order of accounts. 19
14
Order 1, Rule 14, the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
15
16
17
18
Deals with affidavits. Order 19, Rule 9, the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Dr. Ratemo Tom
13
g) Applications for judgment against third party in default.20
h) Applications where a minor attains majority.21
i) Applications for appearance of third parties and directions.22
j) Applications by the defendant seeking contribution or indemnity from a third party. 23
k) Applications for withdrawal of advocate who has ceased to act for a party. 24
l) Application for charging order.25
3. WHETHER CHAMBER SUMMONS ARE PLEADINGS:
 In Jecinta Wanjiru Muiruri v. Jane Wangare Mwangi & City Council of Nairobi,26 where chamber
summons were amended without the leave from the Court, it was held that chamber summons is not a
pleading and accordingly amendments need to be made with leave of the Court.
 In Board of Governors Nairobi School v. Jackson Ireri Geta,27 the appellant raised the question as to
whether chamber summons is a pleading under Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21. The Court
held that chamber summons cannot be pleading under Section 2 of the Act since it is not a prescribed
manner of instituting a suit. It was held that the use of the term ‘summons’ in the definition of the term
‘pleading’ must be read to mean originating summons as that is a manner prescribed for instituting suits nor
do they make claims, counter-claims, or issues, or defences.28
4. ILLUSTRATION:
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. …… OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACT
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
ORDERS OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
ARTICLE 23 (3)(f)
BETWEEN
MARIA JOGINDER ...........……………… APPLICANT
AND
COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF WAKORA ...........……………… 1ST RESPONDENT
COUNTY ASSEMBLY SERVICE BOARD ...........……………… 2ND RESPONDENT
CHAMBER SUMMONS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Civil Case No. 184 of 2006.
27
Civil Case No. 61 of 1999 (Court of Appeal).
28
See, Orbit Chemicals Industries Limited v. Otieno Odek & Company Advocates, Misc. Civil Appeal 162 of 2006.
Dr. Ratemo Tom
14
(Under Order 53, Rule 1(1), (2) and (4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
and Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act, Cap 26)
EX-PARTE
LET ALL PARTIES CONCERNED attend the Honourable Judge in Chambers on the ……. day of
…….. 2015 at 9.00 O'clock in the morning, in the forenoon or soon thereafter as counsel for the Applicant
may be heard for ORDERS:
1. THAT this application be certified as urgent and service thereof be dispensed with in the first instance.
2. THAT leave be granted to the Applicant to apply for an order of CERTIORARI to remove into this
Honourable court and quash the decision of the 1 st Respondent to impeach the Applicant.
3. THAT leave be granted to the Applicant to apply for an order of MANDAMUS to compel the 1st and
2nd Respondent to reinstate the Applicant to her position of speaker of Wakora County Assembly.
4. THAT leave be granted to the Applicants to apply for an order of PROHIBITION to forbid the 2nd
Respondent from advertising the position of speaker and any subsequent appointment to the said
position.
5. THAT the leave so granted do operate as a stay of the decisions of 1 st and 2nd Respondent.
6. THAT the costs of this application be provided for.
WHICH APPLICATION is based upon the grounds set out in the Supporting Affidavit of MARIA
JOGINDER and upon such other and further grounds as may be adduced at the hearing hereof.
Dated at Nairobi this ……… day of ……… 2015.
MPOLE & COMPANY ADVOCATES

ADVOCATES FOR THE APPLICANT
DRAWN & FILED BY:

MPOLE & COMPANY ADVOCATES,
MUTULA HALL, SECOND FLOOR,
P.O. BOX, 100356-00100,
NAIROBI
TO BE SERVED UPON:
1. THE CLERK, COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF WAKORA,
P. O BOX 12345-00200
NAIROBI
2. CHAIRMAN, COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF WAKORA PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD
NAIROBI.
NOTE: If any party served does not appear at the time and place above-mentioned such orders will be
made and proceedings taken as the court may thinks just and expedient.
Dr. Ratemo Tom
15
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. …… OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACT
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
ORDERS OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010
ARTICLE 23 (3)(f)
BETWEEN
MARIA JOGINDER ...........……………… APPLICANT
AND
COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF WAKORA ...........……………… 1ST RESPONDENT
COUNTY ASSEMBLY SERVICE BOARD ...........……………… 2ND RESPONDENT
I, MARIA JOGINDER, of P.O. Box, 100356-00100, Nairobi within the Republic of Kenya, do hereby
make oath and state as follows:
1. THAT I am the Claimant herein with the knowledge of the facts attending to this matter hence,
competent to swear this affidavit.
2. THAT I have read, had it explained to me and understood the contents of, and do hereby confirm the
factual contents thereof as correct.
3. THAT the facts deponed herein are true to the best of my knowledge.
SWORN AT NAIROBI )
By the said Maria Joginder ) …………………………………..
)
BEFORE ME )
)
DRAWN & FILED BY:

MPOLE & COMPANY ADVOCATES,
MUTULA HALL, SECOND FLOOR,
P.O. BOX, 100356-00100,
NAIROBI
TO BE SERVED UPON:
1. THE CLERK, COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF WAKORA,
P. O BOX 12345-00200
NAIROBI
2. CHAIRMAN, COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF WAKORA PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD
Dr. Ratemo Tom
16
NAIROBI
PETITIONS
1. INTRODUCTION:
 A petition is one of the common ways of approaching the Court.
 A petition can only be adopted where there are express provisions in statutes for its use.
 It is made in open Court and not in chambers.
2. WHERE PETITIONS ARE USED:
The petitions are used in matters relating to:
a) election matters i.e., for presidential, parliamentary and civil disputes;
b) the matrimonial causes proceedings;
c) bankruptcy proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act and Rules;
d) proceedings relating to winding up of companies;
e) constitutional litigation i.e., civil litigation seeking to have a constitutional right enforced.
 A petition must be supported by an affidavit setting out the facts. The petitioner is usually the one who
swears the affidavit. An advocate is NEVER to swear on behalf of a client.
 The manner of filing all documentation is through the Registry.
 The respondent must be served just like in a plaint.
3. WITHDRAWAL THE PETITIONS:
 Withdrawal is undertaken when a party realizes s/he is unable to prove his case, or desires out of Court
settlement.
 Withdrawal can only be done by leave of the Court and after filling a prescribed form.
 Parties must file affidavits where the withdrawal is as a result of an agreement. However, the Court can
permit where a party is unable to file an affidavit. The affidavit must state the grounds for seeking
withdrawal.
 The application for withdrawal must then be served and published in the Kenya Gazette at a party’s own
expense.
 The Court then slots in the date for hearing. The application is then heard and the Court may grant leave for
withdrawal or make other necessary orders it deems fit.
4. ILLUSTRATION:
Dr. Ratemo Tom

17
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
ELECTION PETITION NO. OF 2017
BETWEEN
H. E. RAILA AMOLO ODINGA ..………………………... 1 ST PETITIONER
H. E. STEPHEN KALONZO MUSYOKA ..…....………..... 2 ND PETITIONER
AND
INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION ........... 1 ST RESPONDENT
CHAIRPERSON, INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION .... 2 ND
RESPONDENT
H. E. UHURU MUIGAI KENYATTA ……..….……….. 3 RD RESPONDENT
PETITION
The humble Petition of Hon. Raila Amolo Odinga and Hon. Stephen Kalonzo Musyoka whose address of
service for the purpose of this Petition is care of MURUMBA & AWELE ADVOCATES, P. O. Box
22255-00505, Nairobi is as follows:
A) THE PARTIES:
1. The Petitioners are adult males of sound mind, citizens of the Republic of Kenya and duly
registered voters. The Petitioners were the presidential and deputy presidential candidates of the
National Super Alliance (NASA).
2. The 1st Respondent is the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC), an
independent commission established under Article 88 as read together with Articles 248 and 249
of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (COK) and the IEBC Act, 2011. The 1st Respondent is
constitutionally charged with the mandate and responsibility to conduct and/or supervise referenda
and elections to any elective body or office established by the Constitution, and any other
elections as prescribed by the Elections Act, Cap 7.
3. The 2nd Respondent is the Chairperson of the 1st Respondent herein and is constitutionally
mandated under Article 138(10) of the COK to a) declare the result of the presidential election;
and b) deliver a written notification of the result to the Chief Justice and the incumbent President.
4. The 3rd Respondent is the President and was the presidential candidate of the Jubilee Party in the
August 2017 presidential elections and was declared the winner of the said elections by the 1 st
Respondent on 11th August 2017.
B) BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE LAW AND THE GROUNDS OF THE PETITION:
5. The Petitioners aver that the presidential election was badly conducted, administered and managed
by the 1st Respondent that it failed to comply with the governing principles established under
Articles 1, 2, 4, 10, 38, 81, 82, 86, 88, 138, 140, 163 and 249 of the COK,29 Sections 39, 44, 44A,
8330 of the Elections Act, Cap 7 (as specifically set out herein below) and the Regulations made
there under including the Electoral Code of Conduct and other relevant provisions of the Law.
29
The description of the said Articles should be incorporated in this part.
30
Invalidation of elections not conducted in accordance with the Constitution.
Dr. Ratemo Tom
18
6. The petitioners contend that the:
a) 1st Respondent in the conduct and management of the presidential election abdicated its role
and duty to exercise, protect and safeguard the sovereign will of the people of Kenya;
b) 1st Respondent assumed to be a law and institution unto itself in breach of the sovereign will
of the people of Kenya;
c) 1st Respondent in the conduct of the presidential election deliberately failed and/or neglected
to act in accordance with the Constitution and national legislation thereby subverting the
sovereign will of the people;
d) nature and extent of the flaws and irregularities in the presidential election significantly
affected the results to the extent that the 1 st Respondent cannot accurately and verifiably
determine what results any of the candidates received;
e) number of rejected votes that account for at least 2.6% of the total votes cast. This factor has
an effect on the final result and outcome of the presidential election. In Raila Odinga v.
Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Others, Petition No. 5 of 2013 this
Court held that spoilt votes cannot be counted in computing the 50% plus 1 vote threshold to
determine the outcome of the presidential election. In arriving at this decision, the Court
relied on the reasoning of a minority dissenting opinion in the Seychellois Case of Popular
Democratic Movement v. Electoral Commission Constitutional, Case No. 16 of 2011.
However, the majority held that the total number of votes cast in an election refers to all votes
cast whether valid or not; that once a vote is cast into a box regardless of whether it will turn
out to be valid or not that vote has been cast and belongs to the context of votes cast.
7. The framers of the Constitution were fully aware that this is the only Court that can reverse itself
as it is not bound by its own decisions. The Petitioners shall call upon this Court to reconsider its
decision in Petition No. 5 of 2013 and correct itself.
C) GROUNDS AND ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING THE PETITION:
i. Violation of the principles of a free and fair election and electoral process: The presidential
election contravened the principles of a free and fair election under Article 81(e)31 of the COK as
read together with Sections 39 of the Elections Act and the Regulations there under.
8. Relay and transmission of results: The entire process of relay and transmission of results from
polling stations to the constituency and National Tallying Centre (NTC) on the one hand; and from
the constituency tallying centres to the NTC on the other; was not simple, accurate, verifiable,
secure, accountable, transparent, open and prompt. This process therefore substantially
compromised and affected the requirement of free and fair elections under Article 81(e) (iv) and
(v) of the Constitution. The Petitioners aver that the data that was being displayed publically by
the 1st Respondent at the NTC was not consistent with the information and data in the respective
Forms 34A. Besides, the information in Forms 34A is not consistent with the information recorded
31
Article 81 of the Constitution stipulates that the electoral system shall comply with the following principles: a) freedom of citizens to exercise
their political rights under Article 38; free and fair elections, which are by secret ballot; free from violence, intimidation, improper influence or
corruption; conducted by an independent body; transparent; and administered in an impartial, neutral, efficient, accurate and accountable manner.
Dr. Ratemo Tom
19
in Forms 34B as required and legitimately expected. Further, the Petitioners aver that the 1st
Respondent abetted and allowed the electronic media and news channels to relay the purported
results, which the 1st Respondent was aware had no legal or factual basis. The Petitioners aver that
this was deliberate and calculated to create a false narrative and national psyche in preparation to
steal the election in favour of the 3rd Respondent. At the time of declaration of the result, the 1st
Respondent did not have 187 Forms 34B nor did it publically display or avail the same for
verification. The declaration of the final result was therefore invalid and illegal.
9. Impartiality, neutrality, efficiency, accuracy and accountability: The Presidential Election was
not administered in an impartial, neutral, efficient, accurate and accountable manner contrary to
Article 81(e)(v) as read together with Sections 39, 44 and 44A of the Elections Act, the
Regulations made there under, and Section 25 of the IEBC Act. The Petitioners aver that in
numerous instances the 1st Respondent selectively manipulated, engineered and/or deliberately
distorted the votes cast and counted particularly in favour of the 3 rd Respondent thereby affecting
the final results tallied. The grounds, information and evidence detailed in the supporting
affidavits are indicators of a deliberate and/or systemic and systematic interference and
manipulation of the results by the 1st Respondent.
10. Lack and failure of operational transparency: The Petitioners aver that there was massive and
deliberate failure in operational transparency. In so doing The 1st Respondent deliberately and
intentionally disregarded the decision of the Court of Appeal rendered in the case of Independent
and Electoral Boundaries Commission v. Maina Kiai, Court of Appeal Civil No. 105 of 2017 by
failing to: a) electronically collate, tally and transmit accurately results; and b) make the results at
the polling stations final as per the decision.
11. Verifiability: The results and the returns made by the 1st Respondent do not comply with the law
and regulations governing the electoral process and do not meet or satisfy the test of verifiability.
The information in Forms 34A is not consistent with the information recorded in Forms 34B
therefore they are not verifiable.
ii. Voting, counting and tabulation of results: The votes cast in a significant number of polling
stations were not counted, tabulated and accurately collated as required under Article 86(b) and (c)
of the Constitution as read together with the Elections Act.32 In a significant number of polling
stations the votes cast as captured in Forms 34A differ from the results as captured in the 1 st
Respondent’s Forms 34B and also as displayed in the 1 st Respondent own portal.
iii. Substantive non-compliance, irregularities and improprieties: The Petitioners aver that the
Presidential Election was materially marred, fundamentally flawed and affected by the following
non-compliances, irregularities and improprieties contrary to Articles 38, 81 and 86 of the COK as
32
Article 86 of the Constitution stipulates that at every election, the IEBC shall ensure that whatever voting method is used, the system is simple,
accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent; the votes cast are counted, tabulated and the results announced promptly by the
presiding officer at each polling station; the results from the polling stations are openly and accurately collated and promptly announced by the
returning officer; and appropriate structures and mechanisms to eliminate electoral malpractice are put in place, including the safekeeping of
election materials.
Dr. Ratemo Tom
20
read together with, Sections 39(1C), 44 of the Elections Act and the Regulations made thereunder
and Section 25 of the IEBC Act.
12. Ungazetted and undesignated polling stations: The Petitioners aver that contrary to Regulation
7(1)(c) of the Elections (General) Regulations, 2012 the 1st Respondent illegally and fraudulently
established secret and ungazetted polling stations wherefrom results were added to the final tally
thereby undermining the integrity of the election.
13. Improper and invalid returns: The Petitioners aver that the returns used in a number of stations
at polling and constituency levels were not in the prescribed forms 34A and 34B contrary to
Regulation 79(2)(a) and 87(1)(a). A number of Forms 34A and 34B do not bear the signatures of
the candidate’s agents, nor the reason for refusing to sign, nor the IEBC authentic stamp.
D) THE QUESTIONS OR ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COURT:
14. The following are the questions or issues for determination as considered by the Petitioners:
a) Whether the presidential election was conducted in accordance with and in compliance with
the Constitution and the written law and national legislations?
b) Whether the 1st Respondent’s non-compliance with the Constitution and/or the Law in the
conduct of the presidential election affected the validity of the result of the election?
c) Whether the non-compliance, irregularities and improprieties affected the validity of the result
of the Presidential Election?
d) Whether the total number of verified rejected votes should be considered in ascertaining
whether any candidate met the constitutional threshold?
e) Whether the 3rd Respondent was validly declared as the president elect?
f) Whether the 3rd Respondent committed election irregularities?
E) RELIEFS SOUGHT IN THE PETITION:
a) Immediately upon the filing of the Petition, the 1 st Respondent do avail:
i. all the material including electronic documents, devices and equipment for the
presidential election within 48 hours;
ii. and allow access for purposes of inspection of all the logs of any and all servers hosted
by and/or on behalf of the 1st Respondent in respect of the presidential election within 48
hours;
b) A specific order for scrutiny of the rejected and spoilt votes.
c) A declaration that the rejected and spoilt votes count toward the total votes cast and in the
computation of the final tally of the Presidential Election.
d) An order for scrutiny and audit of all the returns of the presidential election including but not
limited to Forms 34A, 34B and 34C.
e) An order for scrutiny and audit of the system and technology used by the 1 st Respondent in
the presidential election including but not limited to the KIEMS Kits, the Server(s);
website/portal.
Dr. Ratemo Tom

21
f) A declaration that the Presidential election held on 8 th August 2017 was not conducted in
accordance with the Constitution and the applicable law rendering the declared result invalid,
null and void;
g) A declaration that the 3rd Respondent was not validly declared as the president elect and that
the declaration is invalid, null and void.
h) An order directing the 1st Respondent to organize and conduct a fresh presidential election in
strict conformity with the Constitution and the Elections Act.
i) Costs of the Petition; and
j) Any other orders that the Honourable Court may deem just and fit to grant.
DATED at NAIROBI this 18th day of August 2017.
MURUMBA & AWELE ADVOCATES

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
DRAWN & FILED BY

P. O. BOX 22255-00505
NAIROBI.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
ELECTION PETITION NO. OF 2017
BETWEEN
H. E. RAILA AMOLO ODINGA ..………………………... 1 ST PETITIONER
H. E. STEPHEN KALONZO MUSYOKA ..…....………..... 2 ND PETITIONER
AND
INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION ........... 1 ST RESPONDENT
CHAIRPERSON, INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION .... 2 ND
RESPONDENT
H. E. UHURU MUIGAI KENYATTA ……..….……….. 3RD RESPONDENT
PETITIONERS’ SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT

I, RAILA AMOLLO ODINGA of P. O. Box Number 10311-00100 Nairobi do make oath and state as
follows:
1. THAT I am a Kenyan Citizen, voter and adult of sound mind, residing and working for gain in the
Republic of Kenya and was duly nominated by the National Super Alliance (NASA) to contest the
general elections on the 8th August 2017 for the position of President. I am therefore well versed with
the facts and circumstances relating to the Petition.
2. THAT on the 8th of August 2017, the 1st Respondent conducted and supervised general elections that
included the Presidential election.
Dr. Ratemo Tom

22
3. THAT Kenyan citizens eligible to participate in the said election cast their votes on the said date at
various polling stations around the country until 5pm or thereabouts.
4. THAT so soon thereafter, the 2nd Respondent acting through presiding officers appointed for that
purpose commenced the process of ballot counting at various polling stations around the country
culminating in the declaration by the 2nd Respondent on 11th August 2017 of results as follows:
Abduba Dida - 38,093, Ekuru Aukot- 27,311, Japheth Kavinga - 16,482, Jirongo Shakhalaga Khwa -
11,705, Joseph Nyaga - 42,259, Michael Wainaina - 13,257, Raila Odinga - 6,762,224 and Uhuru
Kenyatta - 8,203,290.
5. THAT the conduct of the presidential election failed to meet the constitutionally prescribed threshold
of free, fair, transparent, accountable, credible and/or verifiable elections and should therefore be
invalidated.
6. THAT I make this affidavit in support of the Petition.
SWORN AT NAIROBI )
By the said RAILA AMOLO ODINGA ) …………………………………..
)
BEFORE ME )
)
DRAWN & FILED BY:

P. O. BOX 22255-00505
NAIROBI.
TO BE SERVED UPON:
1. INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION,
P. O BOX 45371 - 00100
NAIROBI
2. THE CHAIRPERSON OF INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION,
P.O BOX 45371 – 00100
NAIROBI
3. H.E. UHURU MUIGAI KENYATTA,
HARAMBEE HOUSE,
NAIROBI.
Dr. Ratemo Tom

23

Atp 100 - C

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atp 100 - C

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORIGINATING SUMMONS (ORDER 37)

ASIEMA & CO. ADVOCATES

DRAWN & FILED BY

DRAWN & FILED BY

(Signature is very important)

(Signature is very important)

Dr. Ratemo Tom

DRAWN & FILED BY:

Dr. Ratemo Tom

MPOLE & COMPANY ADVOCATES

DRAWN & FILED BY:

DRAWN & FILED BY:

Dr. Ratemo Tom

Dr. Ratemo Tom

MURUMBA & AWELE ADVOCATES

DRAWN & FILED BY

PETITIONERS’ SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT

Dr. Ratemo Tom

DRAWN & FILED BY:

Dr. Ratemo Tom

You might also like