State adjudicated on the electoral petition and decided to annul the election. From the record, the Applicants aver that the Supreme Court did not make a proper finding by nullifying the election on grounds such as some ballot boxes not being secured, results sheets being tempered with, parties’ representatives keeping the result sheets at their homes, and the presiding officer of one polling station altering the number of votes. According to the Applicants, while those grounds were true, they were not material and did not affect the outcome of the election in a manner that warranted cancellation of the results. 45. The Court notes from the record that, in considering whether those grounds warranted the results being nullified, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that the decision of the High Court on the insufficiency of evidence to overturn the election of the First Applicant was not supported by the evidence. It was on these grounds that the Supreme Court of Appeal set aside the High Court’s judgment, annulled the said election and ordered that fresh elections be conducted in accordance with Section 100(4) of the Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Act in the Nkhatabay Central Constituency. 46. It follows from the foregoing, that there was nothing manifestly erroneous in the manner in which the Supreme Court of Appeal assessed the evidence, and decided as it did. 47. Consequently, this Court therefore dismisses the Applicants’ claim and finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicants’ right to participate freely in the government of his country protected under Article 13(1) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to equal protection of the law 48. The Applicants contend that the Respondent State placed undue emphasis on procedural compliance when determining the election petition, without considering the consequences and costs of such measures in relation to the 13