(c) The adavits of Celestine Anyango Opiyo and Arnold Ochieng Oginga, while containing sensational information, were not credible as the Registrar’s Report conrmed that all the Forms 34A attached to those adavits and purportedly given to them by agents at select polling stations were signicantly dierent from the originals, certied copies and those on the Public Portal. The purported evidence of Celestine Opiyo and Arnold Oginga sworn in their respective adavits was not only inadmissible, but are also unacceptable. It has been established that none of the agents on whose behalf the forms were being presented swore any adavit; that there is nothing to show that they had instructed both Celestine Opiyo and Arnold Oginga to act for them. Yet the two have gone ahead to depone on matters that are not within their knowledge. (d) This court cannot countenance this type of conduct on the part of counsel who are ocers of the court. Though it is elementary learning, it bears repeating that adavits led in court must deal only with facts which a deponent can prove of his own knowledge and as a general rule, counsel are not permitted to swear adavits on behalf of their clients in contentious matters, like the one before us, because they run the risk of unknowingly swearing to falsehoods and may also be liable to cross-examination to prove the matters deponed. We must remind counsel who appear before this court, or indeed before any other court, or tribunal of the provisions of Sections 113 and 114 of the Penal Code, that swearing to falsehoods is a criminal oence, and too that it is an oence to present misleading or fabricated evidence in any judicial proceedings. (e) Section 114 of the Penal Code states that: “ Any person who swears falsely or makes a false armation or declaration before any person authorised to administer an oath or a declaration upon a matter of public concern, and at such circumstances that the false swearing or declaration if committed in a judicial proceeding would have amounted to perjury, is guilty of a misdemeanour.” One of the most serious losses an advocate may ever suer is the loss of trust of Judges for a long time. Such conduct amounts to interference with the proper administration of justice. (f) The contents of the adavit of John Mark Githongo, which may contain forgeries, are dismissed for not meeting the evidential threshold.They contained no more than incredible and hearsay evidence. No admissible evidence was presented to prove the allegation that Forms 34A were fraudulently altered by a group situated in Karen under the direction of persons named in the adavit and video clip attached to it. In fact, his two adavits amount to double hearsay, and incapable of being proved at each layer. (g) We turn to Form 34A for Gacharaigu Primary School which was sensationally presented by Julie Soweto, Advocate, to show that one, Jose Carmago, accessed the RTS and interfered with the result contained therein turned out to be no more than hot air and we were taken on wild goose chase that yielded nothing of probative value. (h) The KIEMS kit relating to Psongoywo Primary School which bore the same serial number with another was admitted by IEBC as an inadvertent manufacturer’s error. We are also satised that the two kits had other identifying features that were markedly dierent including the time stamps and polling code. Nothing turns on that anomaly. kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/240578/ 18