Canadian case of Opitz v. Wrzesnewskj26 and the Nigerian case of Abubakar v. Yar’adua.27 [84] Through Mr, Ahmednassir SC, it was submitted for the 3rd respondent that the 2013 Raila Odinga case is a bedrock of precedent and should not be departed from. He also urged that the Supreme Court was created to develop jurisprudence that was coherent and sound and that the 2013 Raila Odinga case has settled the law as regards elections in Kenya on various aspects such as of burden and standard of proof and interpretation of Section 83 aforesaid. Further, that before the establishment of the Supreme Court, the electoral legal regime in the country was in disarray and therefore this Court should strictly adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis for consistency of its jurisprudence. [85] It was also the 3rd respondent’s submission that as a consequence of the many court cases filed by NASA (some of which are set out in the affidavit of Davis Chirchir) the courts made pronouncements on various specific aspects of elections, thereby checking the manner in which IEBC was to conduct the 2017 election. [86] Mr. Kinyanjui, for the 2nd interested party, supported the respondents’ position and urged that no sufficient evidence had been tendered to oust the prevailing interpretation of Section 83 of the Elections 26 27 Opitz v. Wrzesnewskj , (2012) SCC 55-2012-10-256.  Abubakar v. Yar’adua (2009) All FWLR (Petition 457) 1SC.   Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            34  |  P a g e