| OTHER AUTHORITIES
In our petition, on 21/4/2001, this Court found that the provisions of sections 28 and 32(5) and the principles laid down in said PEA, 2000 had not been complied with. Moreover I personally believe, as I have indicated earlier and shall further show that the petitioner and his witnesses have established that the non-compliance with the provisions and the principles of the Act affected the result of the election in a substantial manner.
Throughout the trial, Counsel for the present two Respondents relied on the provisions of Sub-section (6) of S.58 of the PEA and contended that the standard of proof required of the Petitioner to justify annulment of the election is very high. Learned Counsel cited many cases (some common to both respondents); such cases as Bater, Gunn, Re: Kensington North Constituency (1960) 2 ALL ER.150, Morgan vs. Simpson (1975) 1Q.B.151, Katwiremu (supra).
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
