26 2.3.1.6 The Supreme Court has a discretionary power to extend the time for filing and serving pleadings and any necessary documents or evidence when exercising its exclusive original jurisdiction in presidential election petitions (Rule 15 (2), Supreme Court Rules, 2020); and Raila Odinga v IEBC & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 5 of 2013). 2.3.1.7 The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to extend the time for filing an appeal does not extend to timelines prescribed by the Constitution (Nathif Jama Adam v Abdikhaim Osman Mohamed & 3 Others, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 2014; and George Mike Wanjohi v Steven Kariuki, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 2014). This jurisdictional restriction is especially relevant where events subsequent to the decision of an EDR court, e.g. the declaration of a vacancy in the relevant elective office, requires a by-election to be held within a specified number of days (Nathif Jama Adam v Abdikhaim Osman Mohamed & 3 Others, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 2014, and George Mike Wanjohi v Steven Kariuki, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 6 of 2014). 2.3.1.8 Further, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to extend the time for filing appeals in EDR does not extend to admission of fresh evidence or consideration of new issues in such appeals (Chris Munga N Bichage v Richard Nyagaka Tong’i, IEBC & Robert K Ngeny, Supreme Court Petition No. 17 of 2014; Zacharia Okoth Obado v Edward Akong’o Oyugi & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 4 of 2014). The rationale for this rule lies in the need to ensure fairness to all parties. 2.3.1.9 An exception was made in the case of Mohamed Abdi Mahamud v Ahmed Abdullahi Mohamad & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition 7 & 9 of 2018 (consolidated) where the apex Court ruled that Rule 18(3) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012 (now Rule 26(3) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020), which granted the Court the power to allow additional evidence for sufficient reason, was not a legislative accident. While departing from its 2015 decision in Bichage, the Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to entertain applications for additional evidence. However, this jurisdiction was to be exercised sparingly. The Court set out the following guiding principles on when the jurisdiction to allow additional evidence in appellate courts can be exercised: (i) That the additional evidence be directly relevant to the matter and in the interest of justice; (ii) That it be such that if given, it would influence or impact upon the result of the verdict, although it need not be decisive; (iii) Where it is demonstrated that it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial, was not within the knowledge of, or could not have been produced at the time of the suit or petition by the party seeking to adduce additional evidence; (iv) Where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes any vagueness or doubt over the case and has a direct bearing on the main issue in the suit; (v) The evidence must be credible in the sense that is capable of belief; (vi) The additional evidence must not be so voluminous as to make it impossible for the other party to respond effectively; (vii) Whether a party would reasonably have been aware of and procured the further evidence in the course of trial as an essential consideration to ensure fairness and process; BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION