As far as I know, no constitution, in the world, recognizes or even acknowledges the importance of the concession by the losing presidential candidate in a presidential election. Nevertheless, this concession has become a ritual that all the advanced democracies acknowledge and recognize as an important element of their electoral activities. It is that singular action that signifies the successful resolution of the election and avoids the involvement of the judicial branch, in what should properly belong to the political space.
Occasionally, however, there is a dispute about the election results and the concession is not forthcoming. In this situation, the optimal solution is to have the courts resolve the dispute prior to inaugurating the President. This is because most countries realize the irreparable harm inherent in inaugurating a President, who may not have been validly elected. Such harm includes, but is not limited to, the cloud that hangs around the Presidency, which might deter international stakeholders from dealing with the President, or dealing with him under significant uncertainty. Domestically, the President’s power to appoint is likely to come into conflict with the legislature’s power to vet as a serious legislature may raise questions about the wisdom in investing vetting resources into appointments that may be short-lived. Local actors may be plunged into a wait-and-see mode and freeze their business plans, in light of the uncertainty about the direction of the country.