159 2017). This is also in tandem with Lord Denning’s proposition, noted here in part, that ‘if the Election was so conducted that it was substantially in accordance with the law as to Elections, it is not vitiated by a breach of the rules or a mistake at the polls-provided that it did not affect the result of the Election’ (Morgan v Simpson [1974] 3 All ER 722). 5.15.3 However, where the petition alleges corrupt practice, election offences or data-specific allegations, the petitioner must prove them beyond reasonable doubt (Raila Odinga v IEBC & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 5 of 2013). 5.15.4 For a party to succeed in a presidential election petition, as per section 83 of the Elections Act, 2011, they must prove either that: • The election was not conducted in accordance with the principles set out in the Constitution and other written law; or • The election was fraught with irregularities which affected the declared result. (Raila Odinga v IEBC & 2 Others, Supreme Court Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2017). 5.15.5 The rationale for the exception on election offences is that they are penal in nature and subject to prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions once an election court finds that there is reason to believe that an election offence may have been committed (s 87 Elections Act; and s 21 and 22 of the Election Offences Act, 2016). Where election offences are alleged, the evidence must be specific, satisfactory, definitive, cogent and certain. 5.15.6 In the case of Alfred Nganga Mutua & 2 Others v Wavinya Ndeti & Another, Supreme Court Petitions 11 and 14 of 2018, the Supreme Court held: It is now settled law in this country, (see Raila 2013 and many authorities following it as well as Section 107(1) of the Evidence Act), that the burden of proof lies upon the party alleging a fact to prove it to the required standard. It is also settled law, (see Raila 2017) that the standard of proof of any election offence or quasi criminal conduct is that of beyond reasonable doubt. 5.15.7 Secondly, a litigant who alleges that the successful candidate did not garner a prescribed minimum number of votes must prove such an allegation beyond all reasonable doubt Raila Odinga v IEBC & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 5 of 2013 (Raila Odinga v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 5 of 2013). 5.16 Section 83 of the Elections Act 5.16.1 Section 83 of the Elections Act is the fulcrum of every election petition. It presently reads: (1) A Court shall not declare an election void for non-compliance with any written law relating to that election if it appears that— (a) the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution and in that written law; and (b) the non-compliance did not substantially affect the result of the election. (2) Pursuant to section 72 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act (Cap. 2), BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION