ordinary civil proceedings hence reference to them as sui generis. It must be ascertainable, based on the evidence on record, that the allegations made are more probable to have occurred than not. (iii) Valid Versus Rejected Votes in a Presidential Election in Kenya [154] As in the 2013 Raila Odinga case, an issue of rejected votes has also arisen in this petition. Besides urging this Court to find that the high number of rejected votes in this matter is unrealistic, the petitioners also urged this Court to depart from its decision in the 2013 Raila Odinga case and take rejected votes into account in ascertaining if a candidate had met the constitutional threshold. [155] On their part, the 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that rejected votes were properly excluded from valid votes and in accordance to the law and in line with the Court’s sound finding in the 2013 Raila Odinga case. For the 3rd respondent, it was submitted that the Court in the 2013 Raila Odinga case had made a well-reasoned decision on whether spoilt, disputed and rejected votes should count as part of the votes cast in the computation of the constitutional requisite numerical threshold. They noted that while the Supreme Court is not bound by its own decisions, and no reasonable ground having been advanced for this Court to reverse its decision in the 2013 Raila Odinga case, to ensure predictability, certainty, uniformity and stability in the application of the law, the petitioners’ plea in this regard should be dismissed. It was further urged that the institutionalization of the play of the law gives scope for regularity in spheres of social and economic relations. Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            62  |  P a g e