On the appearance of the name on the academic documents and on nomination, court held that burden is on the petitioner who claims that a party does not have the requisite documents bears the burden to prove the allegation and that writing of the same name in different ways does not constitute proof of invalidity. Further, that this evidence was insufficient to shift the burden and thus upheld the trial judge’s findings on the academic qualifications. On the outcome of the elections court upheld the decision of the lower court when she held that it was difficult to ascertain the eventual winner in light of the altered results in 19 polling stations. On costs court observe that although the trial judge did not give her justifications to the costs, the award is not illegal. On evidence court held that the respondent should have been given an opportunity to tender in evidence the results of polling stations whose final figures he disputes. Court further orders a retrial strictly with regard to this aspect.