affidavits is rule 4.8 of S.I 141-2. Even if counsel for the appellants were to have admitted to the filing of the additional affidavits, incidentally rule 4 does not have a proviso for filing additional affidavits, the law is well settled that incorrect admissions made by counsel during the course of hearing on a matter of law cannot bind a client. Pushapa Vs Fleet Transport company [1960] EA 1025 Failure to comply with statutory provisions while filing an election petition is a matter of law. Further, it is well settled that statutory rights cannot be lost by the invocation of the doctrine of estoppel. See Griffiths Vs Davies [1943] KB 618. No estoppel, whatever its nature can operate to annul statutory provisions. See also Income Tax Commissioner Vs A.K [1964] EA 648. Most importantly however, the right to a fair trial is a constitutionally guaranteed right under Articles 28 and 44 of the Constitution. In De souza v Tanga Town Council [1961]ea 3777 the former Court of Appeal for East Africa held:“If the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision, it is indeed immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at in the absence of the departure from the essential principles of justice that decision must be declared to be no decision.” In the instant petition the appellants rights to a fair hearing and fair trial were clearly violated contrary to the provisions of Articles 28 and 44 of the constitution, rule 4.8 of SI. 141-2 of 2005 and the rules of procedure under the Civil Procedure Act. These provisions embody, inter-alia, important and fundamental principles of natural justice which were greatly compromised throughout the entire process of the preparation and prosecution of the petition to the disadvantage of the appellants. As such, the appellants did not have a fair hearing or fair trial. This was a very complicated case involving numerous affidavits and witnesses, vital facts were kept away from the appellants in the general and imprecise pleadings of the respondent. While the respondent took more than five months to prepare for the legal