110 the Constitution, the Act and the Rules. Without service, the opposite party is denied the opportunity to defend the case. Service is an integral element of the fundamental right to a fair hearing which is underpinned by the well-worn rules of natural justice. As a component of due process, it is important that a party has reasonable opportunity to know the basis of allegations against him. Elementary justice demands that a person be given full information on the case against him and given reasonable opportunity to present a response... Any pleading filed and not served on the opposite party has no legal force. It cannot be dealt with by the court and no lawful order can be drawn from it…Failure to serve a petition is a matter that goes to the very core of the proper and just determination of the petition and cannot be wished away…service of the petition is a mandatory requirement and a petition that has not been served cannot proceed for hearing as the respondent is denied the opportunity to contest the facts in the petition. Mere knowledge of existence of a petition by the respondent can neither cure want of service nor discharge the burden of service imposed on the petitioner by the law… service of the petition is not a mere procedural requirement that can be dispensed with but is a mandatory requirement that must be complied with…It is not a mere technicality that can be swept aside by application of the provisions of Article 159 (2) (d) and the overriding objective set out in rules 4 and 5 of the Rules. Unless waived by the respondent, service must be effected as it is an essential and mandatory step and an affected party is entitled to apply to the court to strike out the petition for want of service. 4.5 Security for Costs 4.5.1 Section 78 of the Elections Act, 2011 requires a petitioner to deposit security for the payment of costs within 10 days of filing the election petition. 4.5.2 The prescribed amounts for purposes of this requirement are: (i) five hundred thousand shillings, in the case of a petition against a member of Parliament or a county governor; or (ii) one hundred thousand shillings, in the case of a petition against a member of a county assembly. 4.5.3 The purpose of the requirement to deposit security for costs is to discourage frivolous or vexatious litigants from challenging the results of an election, which diverts scarce judicial resources from more deserving court business (Esposito Franco v Amason Kingi Jeffah & 2 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 248 of 2008; and Tom Onyango Agimba v IEBC & 2 Others, Milimani High Court Election Petition 18 of 2017). The other purpose of the requirement is to provide recompense to respondents, who are often constrained to incur expenses in defending hopeless and unsuccessful election petitions. 4.5.4 Section 78(3) of the Elections Act, 2011 provides that: Where a petitioner does not deposit security as required by this section, or if an objection is allowed and not removed, no further proceedings shall be heard on the petition and the respondent may apply to the election court for an order to dismiss the petition and for the payment of the Respondent’s costs. BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION