27 (viii) Where the additional evidence discloses a strong prima facie case of wilful deception of the Court; (ix) The Court must be satisfied that the additional evidence is not utilised to remove lacunae and fill in gaps in evidence but that the further evidence is needful; (x) A party who has been unsuccessful at trial must not seek to adduce additional evidence to make a fresh case, fill up omissions or patch up the weak points in her case on appeal; and (xi) The Court will consider the proportionality and prejudice of allowing the additional evidence. This will require the court to assess the balance between the significance of the additional evidence and the swift conduct of litigation together with any prejudice that may arise from the additional evidence. 2.3.1.10 In addition, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in EDR is limited to matters of law only (for a somewhat different opinion, and a very broad view of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, see Lemanken Aramat v Harun Meitamei Lempaka & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 5 of 2014). 2.3.1.11 An application for extension of time to file an appeal before the Supreme Court can only be brought after expiry of the stipulated time. The Supreme Court will not, therefore, extend time where a party is merely apprehensive that the stipulated time may lapse before filing of the appeal (Bwana Mohamed Bwana v Silvano Buko Bonaya & 2 Others, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 20 of 2014). Further authorities 1. Mawathe Julius Musuli v IEBC & Another, Supreme Court Petition 16 of 2018 2. Raila Amolo Odinga & Another v IEBC & 2 Others, Supreme Court Election Petition 1 of 2017 2.3.2 Extension of Time at the Court of Appeal 2.3.2.1 Previous jurisprudence from the Court of Appeal determined that the Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time for filing an EDR appeal (Wavinya Ndeti v IEBC & 4 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 323 of 2013; Basil Criticos v IEBC & 2 Others, Civil Appeal (Application) No. 33 of 2013; and Patrick Ngeta Kimanzi v Marcus Mutua Muluvi & 2 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 191 of 2013). The rationale for this rule lies in the wording of section 85A of the Elections Act, 2011 and the overriding principle of timely resolution of electoral disputes as set out in Article 87(1) of the Constitution. 2.3.2.2 However, under the 2017 Rules, the Court may, for sufficient reasons, extend or reduce the timelines based on terms and conditions deemed just and expedient. Such an extension or reduction does not apply to timelines set by the Constitution and the Elections Act, 2011 (Rule 17, Court of Appeal (Election Petition) Rules, 2017; s 85A, Elections Act, 2011; and Article 87(1) of the Constitution). 2.3.2.3 In the case of John Munuve Mati v Returning Officer Mwingi North Constituency, IEBC & Paul Musyimi Nzengu, Nairobi Election Petition Appeal No. 5 of 2018, the Court of Appeal allowed an application to extend time for the filing of a Notice of Appeal, notwithstanding its late filing, as BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION