145 (i) costs are not to be prohibitive, debarring legitimate litigants from moving the judicial process; (ii) inordinately high costs are likely to compromise the constitutional right of access to processes of justice; (iii) costs are not to bear a punitive profile; (iv) Courts, in awarding costs, are to be guided by principles of fairness, and ready access to motions of justice; (v) costs are intended for decent and realistic compensation for the initiatives of the successful litigant; (vi) costs are not an avenue to wealth, and are not for enriching the successful litigants; (vii) the award of costs shall not defer to any makings of opulence or profligacy in the mode of conduct of the successful party’s cause. Editorial Note: The Rules do not make provision for the timelines for taxation of costs and whether the election court has jurisdiction after the timeline has lapsed to deal with the issue of costs. The Rules are also silent on what is included in the capped costs. The assumption is that save for disbursements, all other costs are capped. In George Gilbert and Mombo Advocates v Lesirma Simeon Saimanga, Misc Application No. 20 of 2022, the Taxing Master held as follows: Rule 34 of the Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petition Rules, 2013 empowers the election court, at the conclusion of a petition to make an order specifying the total amount of costs payable. Pursuant to this the Election Court rendered itself as follows: a) The 1st and 2nd Respondents are awarded costs of Kshs. 4,000,000/= b) The 3rd Respondent is awarded costs of Kshs. 2,000,000/= The Election Court did not itemize the costs to the Respondents awarded. As such the instruction fees is unknown and cannot therefore be Kshs. 6,000,000/= as submitted and proposed by the Applicant. The costs awarded were not capping but rather the precise costs consisting of everything. The respective costs were therefore inclusive of instruction fees, getting up fee, attendance, drawings, perusals, making copies, service, and disbursements. This is confirmed by the certificate of costs dated 6/08/2018. There was no party and party bill of costs for the court to go through as the costs was awarded and set by the Election Court. What appears from the orders of cost by the Election Court is that each Respondent was awarded Kshs. 2,000,000/= as cost. In other word the party and party cost for each Respondent was assessed at Kshs. 2,000,000/= 4.11 Appeals to the High Court 4.11.1 The High Court has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of Magistrate’s Courts on disputes relating to elections to county assemblies (section 75, Elections Act, 2011). The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is limited to ‘matters of law only’ (section 75, Elections BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION