a satisfactory justification. The Court notes from the record, that the First Applicant submitted the additional documents belatedly despite the matter having been adjourned several times. 63. In view of the above, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the right to be heard in respect of the alleged denial of extension of time to file additional documents. ii. Alleged misdirection of the Supreme Court in reconsidering evidence 64. The Court observes that the right to have one’s cause heard entails the possibility of the Applicant to adduce his evidence and for the courts to evaluate the same. 65. In the instant case, the Court observes that the Supreme Court of Appeal did not misdirect itself but merely performed its duties by reconsidering the evidence adduced before the High Court, especially in respect of the assertion that alterations were made to the voting records at Msinjiyiwi polling station. 66. There was also nothing preventing the Supreme Court of Appeal from reconsidering the evidence. 67. The Court therefore finds that the Respondent State did not violate the right to have one’s cause heard with regard to the evidence having been reconsidered by the Supreme Court of Appeal. IX. REPARATIONS 68. The Applicants prays the Court to find that the Respondent State violated their rights protected under Articles 3(2), 7(1)(a) and 13(1) of the Charter and to order the Respondent State to bear the costs of the proceedings. 17