(i) Whether the 2017 Presidential Election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution and the law relating to elections. (ii) Whether there were irregularities and illegalities committed in the conduct of the 2017 Presidential Election. (iii) If there were irregularities and illegalities, what was their impact, if any, on the integrity of the election? (iv) What consequential orders, declarations and reliefs should this Court grant, if any? [126] Before addressing the specific issues highlighted above, we shall first discuss some of the identifiable legal principles emanating in this case, with the aim of setting the foundation for the ultimate determination of this matter. H. INTERROGATING THE EMERGING LEGAL PRINCIPLES (i) Burden of Proof [127] Counsel for the petitioners, and the 1st and 2nd respondents did not make substantive submissions on the burden of proof. It was, however, contended on behalf of the 3rd respondent, that in election matters there is a presumption that the results declared by the electoral body are correct until the contrary is proved. In support of that proposition, reference was made to the decision of this Court in George Mike Wanjohi v. Steven Kariuki & 2 Others41 and that of the Supreme Court of Ghana in Nana 41 George Mike Wanjohi v. Steven Kariuki & 2 others, Petition No. 2A of 2014; [2014] eKLR. Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            51  |  P a g e