109 4.4.1.5 Service on the IEBC may additionally be effected by delivery of the election petition at the head office or such other office as the IEBC may notify (Rule 9(b) of the Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017). 4.4.1.6 Service by way of advertisement must comply with the prescribed format and contain all the prescribed information (Rule 10(3) of the Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017). 4.4.1.7 There is emerging jurisprudence on alternative modes of service including through mobile phones and social communication networks such as WhatsApp. While service is ordinarily to be effected in personal form, the approach to allow alternative modes ‘helps to avoid spurious applications which allege non-service and insist on personal delivery rather than awareness’. This is because the only purpose and essence of service is to bring the proceedings to the attention of an affected party and nothing more (Macharia Patrick Mwangi v Mark Ndungu Nganga & Another, Nairobi High Court Election Petition No. 20 of 2017). Similarly, while dealing with an appeal from a decision by the PPDT, the High Court was, in the case of Chama Cha Mashinani & 2 Others v Beatrice Chebomui, Nairobi High Court Election Petition Appeal No. 44 of 2017, called upon to make a determination on whether the PPDT was right to allow substituted service through the mobile phone communication application known as WhatsApp. The court, while accepting that service through WhatsApp was proper, however clarified that such a mode of service must be accepted with caution. The cautionary measures include ensuring that there is sufficient evidence to show that the mobile number used belonged to the person intended to be served. At para 9 of the decision the court stated as follows: I have already stated that there is no dispute that the 3rd Appellant was served by WhatsApp. There is no dispute that the email address and or the mobile number used belong to the 3rd Appellant. The dispute before this court emanate (sic) from nomination processes by political parties where time is of extreme essence therefore the court in the circumstances is ready to accept various modes of service but with caution as alluded hereinabove. For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the 3rd Appellant was properly served but she chose not to avail herself before the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal to argue her case. Consequences of Non-Service 4.4.2.1 Failure to serve an election petition in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, or at all, is a fatal mistake (Rozaah Akinyi Buyu v IEBC & 2 Others, Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2013; and Charles Kamuren v Grace Jelagat Kipchoim & 2 Others, Election Petition (Eldoret) No. 1 of 2013). 4.4.2.2The dictum of the Court of Appeal in Rozaah Akinyi Buyu v IEBC & 2 Others, Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 40 of 2013 illustrates this point: Service of the Petition upon the respondents was a fundamental step in the electoral process and resolution of disputes arising therefrom. Failure to serve the petition upon the respondents went into the root of the petition and the petition could not stand when there was failure to serve the same. 4.4.2.3In Patrick Ngeta Kimanzi v Marcus Mutua Muluvi & 2 Others, Machakos Election Petition No. 8 of 2013, the Court explained the importance of service in EDR as follows: Although the regime of service of election petitions has been liberalised, the requirement of service was not dispensed with. Service of the petition is still a requirement under BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION