Balancing the Scales of Electoral Justice The courts’ requirement for specific pleas for scrutiny is also sound on the general principles of pleadings. Pleadings are of crucial importance in adversarial litigation. They not only ensure “procedural fairness”110 by “acquainting the court and the parties with the facts in dispute”111 but also, for expeditious disposal of suits, particulars of pleadings “enable the parties to know” in advance the type of evidence they will require to adduce at the hearing.112 There is no reason why these sound principles of pleadings should not apply with equal force to pleadings in election petitions. Besides complying with this legal requirement in election petitions, pleas for scrutiny also serve the purpose of putting both the respondent and the court on notice to expect an application to that effect. This enables the court, during the pre-trial conferencing for time management, to set aside time for the scrutiny exercise. Like in ordinary cases, parties to election petitions should also be bound by their pleadings. As such, they cannot be allowed to adduce evidence “outside” the ambit of their pleadings in the petition.113 Having shown that scrutiny must be specifically pleaded in the petition, the courts have also held that pleas for scrutiny must be precise. Scrutiny is not to be granted on ambiguous pleadings intended to enable a petitioner to engage in a fishing expedition114 and perhaps enlarge his case beyond the scope of his pleadings115 or on pleadings couched in general terms.116 Courts have held that it “would be an abuse of process” to look upon scrutiny “as a lottery” and “to allow a party to use [it] … for purposes of chancing on new evidence.”117 Scrutiny can also never be granted on a blanket prayer.118 As is deducible from Rule 33(4) of the Election Petition Rules, specificity is crucial.119 The prayer for scrutiny must specify the polling station(s) in which the results 110 Banque Commerciale SA, En Liquidation v. Akhil Holdings Ltd, (1990) 169 CLR 279 at 286. 111 Charles E. Clark, ‘History, Systems and Functions of Pleading’(1925) Virginia Law Review, 518 112 Bailey v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1977) 136 CLR 214 at 219. 113 Philip Mungu Ndolo v Omar Mwinyi Shimbwa & 2 others, (Supra) and Kakuta Hamisi v. Peris Tobiko & 2 Others, Nairobi High Court Petition No. 5 of 2013. 114 Philip Mukwe wasike v James Lusweti Mukwe Bungoma High Court Election Petition No. 5 of 2013; see also Ledama ole Kina v Samuel Kuntai Tunai & 10 others, Nakuru High Court, Election Petition No. 3 of 2013. 115 Nuh Nassir Abdi v. Ali Wario & 2 Others, Mombasa High Court Election Petition No. 6 of 2013. 116 Philip Mungu Ndolo v Omar Mwinyi Shimbwa & 2 others, Mombasa High Court Election Petition Number 1 of 2013. 117 In Philip Osore Ogutu v Michael Aringo & 2 Others, Busia High Court Election Petition No. 1 of 2013. 118 Ledama ole Kina v Samuel Kuntai Tunai & 10 others, Nakuru High Court, Election Petition No. 3 of 2013. 119 Philip Mungu Ndolo v Omar Mwinyi Shimbwa & 2 others, Mombasa High Court Election Petition Number 1 of 2013. 261