112 2 of 2013). The rationale for this rule is that any other approach would unreasonably impede access to justice and dissuade persons with a common interest from filing a joint petition with a view to cutting costs. Further, the legal requirement to deposit security for costs is met where the payment is made by way of cash, a banker’s cheque or any other conventional way known or recognised in the normal banking or payment processes (Esposito Franco v Amason Kingi Jeffah & 2 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 248 of 2008). In Rotich Samuel Kimutai v Ezekiel Lenyongopeta & 2 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 273 of 2003, the Court of Appeal held as follows: Parliament could not have intended that all election petitioners must carry into the court registry bank coins or banknotes to the value of Kshs.250,000/= with all the attendant security risks. It would otherwise have provided for “ready money” which is the definition of “cash”. In Re Collings [1933] Ch. 920, it was held that “money” in its strict legal sense included money on deposit or current account at a bank”. And one of the ways such money may be withdrawn and paid out to another person is by way of a cheque, which by definition is a written order to a bank to pay the stated sum from the drawer’s account. If the cheque is not honoured, then there would obviously be no payment. In our view a deposit made upon the filing of an election petition towards security for costs in the form of cash, banker’s cheque or personal cheque is sufficient compliance with the provisions of the section, unless in the case of a personal cheque it be shown that the practice of the Court is not to accept personal cheques, in which case payment has to be made in cash or by Banker’s cheque. 4.5.11 Further, in Rozaah Akinyi Buyu v IEBC & 2 Others, Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2013, the Court held as follows: The respondents’ complaint that the said deposit was not a payment because there was endorsed on the deposit slip the words “CHEQUES WILL BE GIVEN VALUE WHEN PAID”, cannot in our respectful opinion have any legal basis. The legal requirement was to pay the requisite deposit by a way known or recognized in the normal banking or payment processes, and a payment by bankers cheques made within the 10-day period required by law was a good and proper payment. 4.5.12 A petitioner who is represented by an advocate cannot rely on misleading advice from the court registry or judicial staff as a justification for failing to comply with the law on depositing security for costs. In Esposito Franco v Amason Kingi Jeffah & 2 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 248 of 2008, the Court of Appeal ruled as follows: We have carefully examined the evidential material on record and in the end, we are left in no doubt that the advocate seized of the matter on behalf of the petitioner was clueless about the provisions, and therefore the requirements of Section 21 of the Act and Rule 12 thereunder. The expectation that he should have been advised by the court clerks on the law and procedure instead of offering that advice to them is as baffling to us as it was to the learned Judge of the superior court. It would not matter in the circumstances how long he wanted to take in cross-examining those clerks. We cannot therefore blame the Judge in surmising that the advocate either misread the law or was ignorant of it, or alternatively he did not have the deposit at all. 4.5.13 However, the Court will not strike out a petition where the security for costs is paid in time, but the official receipt is issued at a later date, due to any delays occasioned by the Court Registry (Seth Ambusini Panyako v IEBC & 2 Others, Kakamega High Court Election Petition No. 14 of 2017). BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION