EMBU, Kenya- The Embu High Court has dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Mbeere North MP Leo Wamuthende after ruling that the petitioners failed to meet a crucial legal requirement.
In his ruling, Justice Richard Mwongo struck out Petition No. E001 of 2025, filed by voters Julieta Karigi Kithumbu and Patrick Gitonga Gichoni.
The judge said the case could not proceed because the petitioners did not deposit the mandatory Sh500,000 security for costs at the time of filing.
“The requirement to deposit security for costs is a constitutional and statutory obligation that must be complied with at the time of filing an election petition.
Failure to meet this threshold renders the petition incompetent,” Justice Mwongo ruled.
Following the dismissal, the court ordered the two petitioners to jointly pay Ksh. 800,000 in legal costs.
At the same time, the court allowed a separate petition filed by Newton Kariuki, a Democratic Party candidate in the race, to proceed, after finding that he had complied with all legal and procedural requirements.
During preliminary directions, the court set March 9, 2026, as the date for the continuation of the hearing.
Kariuki’s lawyer, Kariuki Njiri, welcomed the decision but criticized the high cost of filing election petitions, arguing that it limits ordinary citizens’ access to justice.
“The security-for-costs requirement is punitive to ordinary citizens who want to seek electoral justice. Parliament should review this provision because the high deposit effectively locks out many Kenyans from challenging disputed elections and uncovering the truth,” Njiri said.
On the other hand, counsel for MP Wamuthende, Adrian Kimotho, defended the strict application of the law and supported the dismissal of the initial petition.
“Election petitions carry serious consequences, including the possible nullification of results, and litigants must strictly adhere to the law. Lowering the threshold would risk encouraging frivolous cases that burden the courts,” Kimotho said.
The court also heard submissions on an application questioning the practice of state agencies hiring private advocates instead of relying on the Office of the Attorney General for legal representation.
