[35] The Learned Solicitor General, in addressing the second relief, argued that it was poorly drafted and vague and must not be granted. Further, that the surreptitious attempt to amend it in the Petitioner's skeleton arguments was untenable based on the case of Christopher Lubasi Mundia v Sentor Motors8 wherein it was held that pleadings cannot be deemed or treated to be amended but must be amended in fact. That doing otherwise would amount to ambushing and taking the opposite side by surprise. [36] On the issue of costs, Mr. Muchende, SC submitted that costs should be awarded to the Respondents because the Petitioner had singled out one candidate requiring the publication as opposed to addressing the fundamental principle underpinning Article 52 (3) of the Constitution. PETITIONER'S REPLY [37] In his reply to the 1st Respondent's Answer, the Petitioner cited, among others, Article 173 (l)(h) on promotion of timely dissemination of public information and section 3 (c) of the Electoral Process Act on the 1st Respondent's need to ensure transparency and credibility in the conduct of elections. The Petitioner added that even assuming that there was no law expressly imposing an obligation to publish the declaration of assets by presidential candidates, the lsl Respondent, as a public institution having a huge stake in democracy, had an obligation to uphold democratic principles which require dissemination of J16