19 integrity of the election or the question of which candidate the people elected (Esther Waithira Chege v Manoah Karega Mboku & 2 Others, Nairobi High Court Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2013). Indeed, section 83 of the Elections Act, 2011 forbids the courts from nullifying an election because of trivial errors or irregularities, if such errors or irregularities have no bearing on compliance with the applicable constitutional and statutory principles or the correctness of result declared by the electoral management body: No election shall be declared to be void by reason of non-compliance with any written law relating to that election if it appears that the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution and in that written law or that the noncompliance did not affect the result of the election. 1.9.9.12 Although section 83 of the Elections Act, 2011 requires the courts to strive to preserve the outcome of an election as much as possible, it is not a panacea for curing all the errors, irregularities or malpractices that may conceivably occur at an election. Moreover, the sovereignty of the people must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution (Article 1(1) of the Constitution). Accordingly, the courts will nullify an election that is conducted in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles laid down in the Constitution even if the result or choice made by the people at such an election is not affected by the alleged errors, irregularities or malpractices (Rozaah Akinyi Buyu v IEBC & 2 Others, Kisumu Election Petition No. 3 of 2013). The rationale for nullifying such an election lies in the duty of the court to enforce the relevant constitutional principles, and particularly the need to avoid sanctioning chaos, vandalism or thuggery in the country’s electoral processes. As explained in James Omingo Magara v Manson Onyongo Nyamweya & 2 Others, Kisumu Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2010: It is true that on the scrutiny and recount of the votes, the appellant still had the largest number of votes. But as I have pointed out that was not all the learned Judge was supposed to go by though it was an important consideration to bear in mind… The scrutiny and recount of the votes by the learned Judge disclosed numerous irregularities, among them unsigned and, therefore, unauthenticated Forms 16A, three missing ballot boxes, broken ballot seals and many others...In my view these irregularities could not have been cured under section 28 of the National Assembly and Presidential Elections Act [now s. 83 of the Elections Act, 2011]. That section cannot be used to cover a situation where even the source of the votes in the ballot boxes cannot be conclusively determined. Again, to use that section to cover the disappearance of ballot boxes, irrespective of the number of the ballot papers in the missing boxes, would simply amount to encouraging vandalism in the electoral process. Our experiences in Kenya following the 2007 elections part of which we are discussing herein, show us that no Kenyan, whether as an individual or as part of an institution, ought to encourage such practices. Section 28 cannot be used to white-wash all manner of sins which may occur during the electoral process and for my part I have no doubt that Parliament did not design the section for the purpose of covering serious abuses of the electoral process. (See also William Odhiambo Oduol v IEBC & 2 Others, Kisumu Election Petition No. 2 of 2013 at pp. 7 –8). 1.9.9.13 In Raila Odinga v IEBC & 2 Others, Supreme Court Election Petition 1 of 2017, the Court ruled at para 211 in relation to section 83, that: In our respectful view, the two limbs of Section 83 of the Elections Act should be applied disjunctively. In the circumstances, a petitioner who is able to satisfactorily prove either of the two limbs of the Section can void an election. In other words, a petitioner who BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION