[331] It is not in doubt therefore that the Supreme Court may in exercise of its jurisdiction such as this, interpret the Constitution and in doing so, where the need requires, declare an offending provision of the law to be unconstitutional. Such is a natural consequence of any legal reasoning if the Court were to maintain its fidelity to the law. Indeed in S. K. Macharia and Anor v. KCB120, the Court declared Section 14 of the Supreme Court Act to be unconstitutional. However, the present scenario is peculiar in the sense that, the petitioners did not at the very first instance, through their pleadings, indicate their intentions to declare Section 23 to be unconstitutional. [332] The rule of the thumb has always been that parties must be bound by their pleadings and especially in a case such as this where the petitioner is asking the Court to address its mind to the possible unconstitutionality of a legal provision. For proper consideration therefore, and especially in order to do justice to both the parties and the greater public interest, we cannot afford to lock our eyes to the disadvantage placed upon the 3rd respondent especially who had no benefit to bring his thoughts into this cause. [333] In the circumstances, we are unable to find that Section 23 is unconstitutional. Let the matter be addressed in the right proceedings in the right circumstances. Irregularities [334] Apart from outright non-compliance with electoral law, the petitioners also claimed that the presidential election was marred by many 120 S. K. Macharia and Anor v. KCB Sup. Ct. Application No.2 of 2011, [2012] eKLR Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            144  |  P a g e