160 a form prescribed by this Act or the regulations made thereunder shall not be void by reason of a deviation from the requirements of that form, as long as the deviation is not calculated to mislead. 5.16.2 The above provisions were enacted in 2017, vide the Election Laws (Amendment) Act No. 34 of 2017, with the effect that the previous disjunctive ‘section 83 test’ was replaced with a conjunctive test thus requiring petitioners to prove both limbs, i.e., that the election was conducted in violation of the Constitution and written law, and that non-compliance with the law affected the result of the elections. 5.16.3 Prior to this amendment, the provision read: 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. 5.16.4 However, following the enactment of the Election Laws Amendment Act, No. 34 of 2017, it was challenged by Katiba Institute vide Katiba Institute & 3 Others v Attorney General & 2 Others, Nairobi Petition No 548 of 2017. The High Court declared the Amendment to section 83 of the Elections Act unconstitutional and struck it down. 5.16.5 No legislative amendment was introduced to align section 83 with the decision of the Court, nor was an appeal preferred against the decision of the Court. Reference may, therefore, be had to similar situations where an amendment was declared unconstitutional to ascertain the effect of the declaration of unconstitutionality. 5.16.6 In Senate & 2 Others v Council of County Governors & Others, Supreme Court Petition 25 of 2019, an amendment to section 91(f) of the County Governments Act was declared unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the effect of the declaration of unconstitutionality was to restore the previous section 91(f) of the County Governments Act. Similarly, in the case of Attorney General & 2 Others v David Ndii & 79 Others, Supreme Court Petition 12 of 2021 (consolidated with petitions 11 and 13 of 2021), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the quorum of the IEBC in light of the amendments to paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule to the IEBC Act, which were also declared unconstitutional in the Katiba case. The majority of the judges endorsed the position taken in the Senate case that the effect of an amendment being declared unconstitutional is to restore the status quo before the amendment. 5.16.7 In light of the above jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, by parity of reasoning, the declaration of invalidity of the 2017 amendment to section 83 of the Elections Act had the effect of restoring section 83 as it stood before the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, No. 34 of 2017. 5.16.8 Courts are thus left with the binding edicts of the Supreme Court on the interpretation to be applied to section 83 of the Elections Act, i.e., that the test is disjunctive. This test was affirmed in Raila Odinga v IEBC & 2 Others, Supreme Court Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2017; and Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Githinji and 2 Others, Supreme Court Application 5 of 2014. 5.17 Integration of Technology in Transmission of Presidential Election Results 5.17.1 Presidential results are required to be transmitted electronically from polling stations to the Constituency and National Tallying Centres. They are also required to be live-streamed and maintained on a public portal (s 39(1C) of the Elections Act). BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION