73 (Walter Onchonga Mongare v Wafula Chebukati & 2 Others, Constitutional Petition No. E318 of 2022; and Jimi Richard Wanjigi v Wafula Chebukati & 2 Others, Civil Appeal No E404 of 2022). 3.5.4.12 Challenges to a candidate’s eligibility on the basis of educational requirements ought to be raised with the IEBC at the pre-election stage and, if this is not done, it cannot be raised before the election court. However, the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court may still be invoked on the matter after the election (Sammy Ndung’u Waity v IEBC & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition 33 of 2018; Mohamed Abdi Mahamud v Ahmed Abdullahi Mohamad & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition 7 & 9 of 2018 (consolidated)); and Armstrong Mwandoo Kiwoi & Another v Granton Graham Samboja & 7 Others, Voi Election Petition 1 of 2017). 3.5.4.13 However, in Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Granton Graham Samboja & Snother; Kenyatta University & Another (Interested Parties), Constitutional Petition 382 of 2017, the High Court struck out the constitutional petition on the basis that the issue of educational qualifications ought to have been raised in an election petition, not a constitutional one. The Court did not refer to Armstrong Mwandoo Kiwoi & Another v Granton Graham Samboja & 7 Others, Voi Election Petition 1 of 2017, filed on the same issue and which had been struck out to allow the constitutional petition to address the issue of educational qualifications. Moreover, it also does not appear to accord with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on this issue. The Supreme Court dicta in Sammy Waity is to the effect that, where such an issue is not resolved, the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court can still be invoked after elections (Mohamed Abdi Mahamud v Ahmed Abdullahi Mohamad & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition 7 & 9 of 2018 (consolidated)). 3.5.4.14 Where it is alleged that a candidate does not possess the requisite educational qualifications, it is incumbent upon the person alleging to adduce evidence of the same, particularly where forgery in the acquisition of the degree certificate is alleged (Janet Ndago Ekumbo Mbete v IEBC & 2 Others, Constitutional Petition 116 of 2013. In Dennis Gakuu Wahome v IEBC & Others, Nairobi High Court Petition No. E321 of 2022 (Johnson Sakaja Koskei) (unreported), the Court asserted: [245] At the beginning of the proceedings before the DRC, both the legal and evidential burden of proof were on the Petitioner. [246] It is the Petitioner who alleged that the 4th Respondent’s degree certificate from the TEAM University was falsified. The Petitioner went further and annexed a copy of the degree certificate in his disposition. Therefore, the Petitioner was in possession of the impugned degree at the institution of the case before the DRC. [247] Given that the Petitioner’s case was based on criminal allegations on the part of the 4th Respondent relating to the degree certificate which was in the possession of the Petitioner, the evidential burden of proof called upon the Petitioner to prove that indeed the degree certificate was not genuine and that the 4th Respondent had committed various criminal acts. [248] It was upon the tendering of such evidence by the Petitioner that the evidential burden of proof would then shift to the 4th Respondent. [282] As I come to the end of this issue, I must express concern in the manner in which serious matters regarding allegations of forged academic documents are generally handled in this country. I say so noting that this is not the first case in which the High Court has declined to find a party accused of forging academic certificates culpable in non-criminal proceedings. The High Court has repeatedly stated that matters of such BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION