184 6.3.1.10 Where an appeal invites the court to examine the probative value of the evidence presented before the trial court, or where the appellate court is called upon to calibrate the evidence or question the credibility of witnesses, such an appeal is inadmissible (Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 2B of 2014; John Munuve Mati v RO Mwingi North & Others, Nairobi Election Petition Appeal 5 of 2018). On the other hand, making a determination as to the place in law of the affidavit of an original petitioner who had been allowed to withdraw from the petition before being cross-examined, rather than determining the veracity of the averments in the affidavit amounts to a point of law (Bernard Kibor Kitur v Alfred Keter & IEBC, Supreme Court Petition 27 of 2018). The Court of Appeal has also asserted that it can re-evaluate the evidence on record to determine whether the decision and conclusions of the trial court were so perverse that no reasonable tribunal would have arrived at the same conclusion (Idris Abdi Abdullahi v Ahmed Bashame & 2 Others, Nairobi Election Petition Appeal No 19 of 2018). 6.3.1.11 The Court of Appeal has ruled in some cases that appeals where the Notice of Appeal is anchored on mixed grounds of law and facts divests it of jurisdiction (Apungu Arthur Kibira v IEBC & 2 Others, Kisumu Election Petition Appeal No 11 of 2018; Lesirma Simeon Saimanga v IEBC & 2 Others, (Nakuru) Election Petition Appeal (Application No. 7 of 2018); Hon. Mohamed Abdi Mohamud v Ahmed Abdullahi Mohamad & 3 Others, Nairobi Election Petition Appeal No. 2 of 2018). It is asserted that it is not the role of the appellate court to separate grounds of fact from points of law. In Pius Yattani Wario v IEBC & Another, Election Petition 10 of 2018, the Court asserted: As we have already noted, many of the grounds of appeal and of the cross-appeal are prefixed by the assertion that the learned judge “erred in law and in fact” in arriving at various determinations. Of late, we have encountered two strands of response from appellants when we query why they have framed their grounds of appeal in an election petition to include invitations to the Court to determine issues of fact. The first is denial that the appeal indeed raises issues of fact, notwithstanding how the grounds of appeal are framed. In this response, the matter is reduced to an issue of semantics, raising the question why a party who seeks determination of issues of law only is not able to say so in a straightforward manner. The second, a more honest, if lazy approach, is to admit that the appeal indeed raises issues of fact and throw back the problem to the Court to sort out matters of fact from matters of law, before making its determination. We think both approaches are to be deprecated. It is not the business of the Court in each and every appeal to jump into the haystack to look for the needle. It is for the appellant to frame the issues that aggrieve him or her with precision and clarity. Encouraging that kind of practice will ultimately make nonsense of the rules of pleadings and encourage parties to present to the Court a potpourri of myths, rumours, allegations, facts, and so on, in the mistaken belief that it is the business of the Court to sort out the relevant from the irrelevant, as it strives to sustain all and sundry claims, however presented. 6.3.1.12 However, in other cases, it has been ruled that the Court of Appeal ought to look beyond the manner in which the grounds of appeal were crafted to determine whether points of law were raised and which the court can address itself to (Wavinya Ndeti &Another v IEBC & 2 Others, Nairobi Election Appeal 8 of 2018; Stanley Muiruri Muthama v Rishad Hamid Ahmed & 2 Others, Mombasa Election Petition Appeal No 1 of 2018 as consolidated with Election Petition Appeal No 3 of 2018; Timamy Issa Abdalla v IEBC & 3 Others, Mombasa Election Appeal No 4 of 2018; Joel Makori Onsando & Another v IEBC & 5 Others, Kisumu Election Petition Appeal No 17 of 2018; Owino Paul Ongili Babu v Francis Wambugu Mureithi & 2 Others, Nairobi Election Appeal 18 of 2018; Hassan Aden Osman v IEBC & 2 Others, Election Petition Appeal No 11 of 2018; Mawathe Julius Musili v IEBC & Another, Supreme Court Petition 16 of 2018). Reiterating the latter BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION