standard of proof on a ‘balance of probabilities’, but below the criminal standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, is applied. In such cases, this Court stated in the 2013 Raila Odinga case that “[t]he threshold of proof should, in principle, be above the balance of probability, though not as high as beyond-reasonable-doubt….” [149] This is the standard of proof that has been applied in literally all election petitions in this country. For instance, in the case of M'nkiria Petkay Shen Miriti v. Ragwa Samuel Mbae & 2 Others70 the Court of Appeal observed that “[f]rom the practice and history of this country, the standard of proof required in Election Petitions is higher than a balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt save where offences of a criminal nature are in question.” [150] The rationale for this higher standard of proof is based on the notion that an election petition is not an ordinary suit concerning the two or more parties to it but involves the entire electorate in a ward, constituency, county or, in the case of a presidential petition, the entire nation. As the Tanzanian High Court stated in the old case of Madundo v. Mweshemi & A-G Mwanza71: “An election petition is a more serious matter and has wider implications than an ordinary civil suit. What is involved is not merely the right of the petitioner to a fair election but the right of the voters to non-interference with their already cast votes i.e. their decision without satisfactory reasons.” M'nkiria Petkay Shen Miriti v. Ragwa Samuel Mbae & 2 Others, Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2013; [2014] eKLR.   71 Madundo v. Mweshemi & A-G Mwanza HCMC No. 10 of 1970.   70 Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            60  |  P a g e