136 Court Petition 27 of 2018, asserting that while there was sufficient evidence of unlawful campaigns, it was not substantial enough to nullify an election. Courts, however, may allow an election petition even where the misconduct, irregularity or malpractice proved by the petitioner does not amount to an election offence (Ali v Gethinji [2008] 1 KLR (EP) 215; and Raila Odinga v IEBC & 2 Others, Supreme Court Presidential Election Petition 1 of 2017). 4.8.3.3.22 Further, the proof of a single act of bribery by or with knowledge and consent or approval of the successful candidate or the successful candidate’s agents, however insignificant the act may be, is sufficient to invalidate an election (s 80(4)(b), Elections Act, 2011). Once bribery is proved, an election court is not at liberty to weigh its impact on the result of the election or allow any excuse whatever the circumstances may be (Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. 15 at p. 534; and Moses Masika Wetangula v Musikari Nazi Kombo & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 12 of 2014). 4.8.3.3.23 For this reason, the allegations of bribery must be proved by clear and unequivocal evidence (Wilson Mbithi Munguti Kabuti & 5 Others v Patrick Makau King’ola & Another, Machakos Election Petition No. 9 of 2013; Arthur Papa v Oku Edward Kaunya & 2 Others, Busia High Court Election Petition 2 of 2017; Peter Odima Khasamule v IEBC & 2 Others, Busia High Court Election Petition 4 of 2017; Samwel Kazungu Kambi v Nelly Ilongo and 2 Others, Malindi Election Petition 4 of 2017; Joseph Oyugi Magwanga & Another v IEBC & 3 Others, Homa Bay Election Petition 1 of 2017; Peter Odima Khasamule v IEBC & 2 Others, Busia High Court Election Petition 4 of 2017; and Kennedy Moki v Rachel Kaki Nyamai & 2 Others, Kitui Election Petition 2 of 2017). In Twaher Abdulkarim Mohamed v Mwathethe Adamson Kadenge & 2 Others, Malindi High Court Election Petition Appeal No. 1 of 2014, the Court (citing Halsbury’s Laws of England) summarised the law on bribery in the following words: Due proof of a single act of bribery by or with the knowledge and consent of the candidate or by its agents, however insignificant that act may be, is sufficient to invalidate the election, the judges are not at liberty to weigh its importance, nor can they allow any excuse, whatever the circumstances may be such, such as they can allow in certain conditions in cases of treating or undue influence by agents. For this reason, clear and unequivocal proof is required before a case of bribery will be held to have been established. Suspicion is not sufficient, and the confession of the person alleged to have been bribed is not conclusive. Bribery, however, may be implied from the circumstances of the case, and the court is not bound by the strict practice applicable to criminal cases, but may act on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice…The court has always refused to give any exhaustive definition on the subject, and has always looked to the exact facts of each case to discover the character of the transaction. A corrupt motive must in all cases be strictly proved. A corrupt motive in the mind of the person bribed is not enough. The question is as to the intention of the person bribing him. Where the evidence as to bribery consists merely of offers or proposals to bribe, stronger evidence will be required….A general conversation as to a candidate’s wealth and liberality is not evidence of an offer to bribe. General evidence may, however, be given to show that what the character of particular acts has presumably been. 4.8.3.3.24 Mere suspicion is not enough, and neither is the confession of the person alleged to have been bribed (Arthur Papa v Oku Edward Kaunya & 2 Others, Busia High Court Election Petition 2 of 2017). To succeed in invalidating an election based on the commission of the offence of bribery, not only must there be proof to the required standard, but the evidence must also demonstrate a relationship between a candidate and the offender and the impact of the offence on the election (Arthur Papa v Oku Edward Kaunya & 2 Others, Busia High Court Election Petition 2 of 2017; Julius Makau Malombe v Charity Kaluki Ngilu & 2 Others, Machakos Election Petition 4 of 2017; Joseph Oyugi Magwanga & Another v IEBC & 3 Others, Homa Bay BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION