115 v Chiriba Daniel Chai & IEBC, Malindi Election Petition Appeal 1 of 2018). 4.7.2.4 The election court has no jurisdiction to allow an amendment if the proposed amendment would have the effect of changing the nature and character of the petition. The courts, therefore, disallow any proposed amendment that seeks to introduce fresh and new evidence (Abdiwahab Sheikh Osman Hathe v Mohamed Ali Sheikh & 3 Others, Garissa Magistrate’s Court Election Petition No. 1 of 2017). 4.7.2.5 The courts may allow amendments to correct inadvertent errors and omissions at any stage of EDR proceedings, including appellate stages, where the amendment would not occasion prejudice to any party (Musa Cherutich Sirma v IEBC & 2 Others, Kabarnet Election Petition No. 1 of 2017; and Ramadhan Seif Kajembe v Returning Officer, Jomvu Constituency & 3 Others, Mombasa Election Petition No. 10 of 2013). 4.7.2.6 The courts do not, however, allow amendments which seek or purport to cure a fatal defect in an election petition, e.g., failure to comply with prescribed mandatory requirements such as an omission to file an affidavit in support of a petition or votes garnered by candidates (Amina Hassan Ahmed v Returning Officer Mandera County & 2 Others, Garissa Election Petition No. 4 of 2013; Ismail Suleman & 9 Others v Returning Officer Isiolo County & 2 Others, Meru Election Petition No. 2 of 2013; and Gerald Iha Thoya v Chiriba Daniel Chai & IEBC, Malindi Magistrates’ Court Election Petition No. 2 of 2017). 4.7.2.7 Further, the courts will not allow an application for amendment where such an application is no more than a fishing expedition for evidence (Musa Cherutich Sirma v IEBC & 2 Others, Kabarnet Election Petition No. 1 of 2017; and Charles Nyaga Njeru v IEBC & Another IEBC & Another, Chuka Election Petition No. 1 of 2013). 4.7.2.8 Previously, courts held that the amendment of a pleading extinguishes the previous pleading. For instance in Lambeshua Reuben Moriaso Ole v Kool Julius Ole & 3 Others, Narok Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court Election Petition No. 1 of 2013, the petitioner filed an amended election petition but sought to rely on the affidavits filed in the original petition. The Court ruled as follows: It is settled law that the filing of an amended pleading extinguishes the earlier pleading. Therefore, by filing the present Amended Petition the original Petition became extinct as a dodo. It would be untenable in law, as the Petitioner sought to do, to rely both on the original Petition and the Amended [P]etition. If the Court was to permit this position, the Court would end up with a bicephalous [P]etition in its hands; a strange creature unknown to the election regime and law but probably known in Greek Mythology as Orthros: a two-headed canine beast whose mythical role ended prematurely when Hercules clobbered it out of existence. A two-headed [P]etition? Not in the Kenya election law and regime…. A Petition could not be complete without an affidavit in support of the Petition; there are also no witness Affidavits. Rule 10 (3) (b) of the Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petition Rules, 2013 [now Rule 8 of the Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017] is couched in mandatory terms and this was not complied with. With that omission, the Petition failed to attain the minimum basic threshold of law disclosing sufficient facts and grounds for granting the reliefs sought… 4.7.2.9 However, in departing from this position, the High Court in Gerald Iha Thoya v Chiriba Daniel Chai & Another, Malindi Election Petition Appeal No. 1 of 2018, held that in determining whether an amendment extinguishes a previous one depends on whether the amendment is successful or aborted. The Court opined: BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION