127 bring an impartial mind to bear on the adjudication of the case, that is a mind open to persuasion by the evidence and the submissions of counsel. The reasonableness of the apprehension must be assessed in the light of the oath of office taken by the judges to administer justice without fear or favour; and their ability to carry out that oath by reason of their training and experience. It must be assumed that they can disabuse their minds of any irrelevant personal beliefs or predispositions. They must take into account the fact that they have a duty to sit in any case in which they are not obliged to recuse themselves. At the same time, it must never be forgotten that an impartial judge is a fundamental prerequisite for a fair trial and a judicial officer should not hesitate to recuse herself or himself if there are reasonable grounds on the part of a litigant for apprehending that the judicial officer, for whatever reasons, was not or will not be impartial. 4.8 The Trial 4.8.0 The trial of parliamentary and county election petitions must be completed within six months of the date of filing the petition (Article 105(2) of the Constitution and sections 75(2) and 85, Elections Act, 2011). Rule 20 of the Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017 requires the hearing of election petitions to be conducted uninterrupted and on a day-to-day basis until they are concluded. The election court must send the parties a notice of the date, time and place fixed for the trial of an election petition (Rule 18(1) of the Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017). The notice must be issued at least 7 days prior to the date fixed for the trial of the election petition (Rule 18(2) of the Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017). 4.8.1 Examination of witnesses 4.8.1.1 Rule 12(12) and (13) of the Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017 stipulate that witness affidavits shall form the deponent’s examination-in-chief and that every witness shall be examined in chief and cross-examined during the trial. 4.8.1.2 The rationale for allowing the examination-in-chief in EDR to take the form of affidavits instead of viva voce evidence lies in the constitutional objective of timely resolution of electoral disputes (Nuh Nassir Abdi v Ali Wario & 2 Others, Mombasa Election Petition No. 6 of 2013; and Gideon Mwangangi Wambua & Another v IEBC & 2 Others, Mombasa Election Petition No. 4 of 2013). In Ramadhan Seif Kajembe v Returning Officer, Jomvu Constituency & 3 Others, Mombasa Election Petition No. 10 of 2013, the Court cited the following dictum from the Court of Appeal of Uganda in Badda & Another v Mutebi [2008] 2 EA 42 on the rationale for replacing examinationin-chief with affidavit evidence: the learned trial Judge adopted an irregular procedure by allowing witnesses to give evidence in-chief on their affidavits when they should have been merely cross-examined to test their veracity. This defeated the purpose of the rule by wasting a lot of time. It is further astonishing that all counsel for each party acquiesced in this irregularity. 4.8.1.3 Although sub-rule 13 refers to witnesses being examined in-chief then cross-examined, witnesses must confine themselves to what they have deponed in their affidavits. In the case of Mohamed Ali Mursal v Saadia Mohamed & 2 Others, Garissa Election Petition No. 1 of 2013, the High Court upheld an objection raised on this ground and ruled that: If the situation were to be left fluid I doubt whether the determination of election disputes would be as fast as the law contemplates. This is because new matters would crop up every now and then whenever a witness takes to the witness box. This BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION