Court highlighted the standard of proof to be on the balance of probability and the burden lies on the petitioner in election petitions. On evaluation of evidence wrong application of evidence were made. That in allegations such as sectarian campaign, it is imperative to use corroborative evidence and the trial judge erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence. On allowing the respondents to respond out of time, court held that courts do not exist to punish but rather to adjudicate and ensure administration of justice. On shifting the burden of proof court held that the trial judge went against the law when he required the first appellant to satisfy a burden that was for the respondent to discharge. On annulling the election court held that the right to a fair hearing dictated that it could not issue orders against or in favour of non-parties to the suit. On the competency of the petition court held that insufficient evidence was brought to court but the petition had some merits.