144 that the parties have engaged themselves in. Equally, it is expected that huge financial resources have been spent in prosecuting and defending this matter. Yet, while the general rule is that the successful party ought to be paid costs by the unsuccessful one, where proceedings are declared to be a nullity, no party can claim success – see Paul Chen-Young v. Ajax Investments Ltd & Others, Jamaica Supreme Court Civil Appeal No.39 of 2006, Paras 205 and 206. Each party should therefore bear their costs in the proceedings before all the Courts. 4.10.12 The abatement of an election petition does not extinguish the liability of the petitioner, or any other party, to pay costs already incurred (Rule 30(3), Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017). Further, the courts may order a petitioner to pay costs where an election petition is withdrawn, struck out, or otherwise abate (Anastacia Wanjiru Mwangi v IEBC & Another, Election Petition No 11 of 2013). 4.10.13 Where a petitioner moves an election court as a proxy, that is, on behalf of an unsuccessful candidate, and the petition is dismissed, the court may make an order for costs against such a petitioner or against his/her principal (John Okello Nagafwa v IEBC & 2 Others, Busia Election Petition No. 3 of 2013; Dickson Mwenda Kithinji v Gatirau Peter Munya & 2 Others, Meru Election Petition No. 1 of 2013). In Dickson Mwenda Kithinji v Gatirau Peter Munya & 2 Others, Meru Election Petition No. 1 of 2013, the Court held as follows: The Petitioner who agrees to bring a petition on behalf of an unsuccessful candidate should be ready to meet the consequences of a failed petition and cannot hide behind the fact of being a sponsored petitioner. He should make arrangements with the principal in advance. The Petitioner in my view should not be left unpunished for his actions as by failing to do so would encourage the unsuccessful candidates to use men of no means to file petitions with the hope of getting away without paying costs in case the Petitioner does not succeed. 4.10.14 In John Okello Nagafwa v IEBC & 2 Others, Busia Election Petition No. 3 of 2013, the Court held as follows: Rule 36 (1) of the Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petition Rules, 2013 [now Rule 30 (1) of the Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017] is wide enough to enable a Court to direct an order of costs against such persons [i.e. persons who use a proxy to file an election petition…The use of the word “persons” and not “party” [in that Rule] is, in my view, deliberate. In appropriate circumstances, persons other than the Petitioner/s or the Respondents may be subjected to costs. There is no reason why the actual owner of a failed petition should be left unpunished. 4.10.15 The Supreme Court in Cyprian Awiti & Another v IEBC & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition 17 of 2018, at para 105F, taking judicial notice of the notoriety of the award of costs in election petitions, issued the following guidelines for the award of costs in election petitions: (a) the general rule that “costs follow the event” is applicable in election matters in which no special circumstances are apparent; (b) however, an election Court holds discretion in reserve, for awarding costs as merited by the occasion; (c) a discretion vests in the election court to prescribe a ceiling for the award of costs; (d) in setting a ceiling to the award of costs, the election court stands to be guided by certain considerations, namely: BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION