to have been so. The petition before us was however simple and to the point. It was obvious to us, that IEBC misunderstood it, hence its jumbledup responses and submissions. Our judgment is also simple, and in our view clear and understandable. It ought to lead IEBC to a soul-searching and to go back to the drawing board. If not, this Court, whenever called upon to adjudicate on a similar dispute will reach the same decision if the anomalies remain the same, irrespective of who the aspirants may be. Consistency and fidelity to the Constitution is a non-wavering commitment this court makes. [403] One other peripheral but important matter requires our attention; the timeframe for hearing and determining a presidential election petition in Kenya. The Court is able to bear all manner of criticisms but one would be extremely unfair; alleged inability to deliver on time. Where is that time? Between the decision in the 2013 Raila Odinga case and the present petition, it was a matter of agreement across Kenya that 14 days is not enough for parties and the Court to fully deliver on their respective mandates not because they cannot (in fact they all have) but because there may be the need to conduct exercises such as a recount of votes or scrutiny which require substantial amounts of time. Yet the Legislature ignored pleas to rethink the timeframe. It is time they did so. The reasons for doing so are obvious and need no extrapolation here. [404] In concluding, we must express our profound gratitude to all counsel who appeared before us, for their submissions that assisted us in reaching the present decision. Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            176  |  P a g e