Text Data was transmitted instead of the filled and scanned Forms 34A. At any rate, argued the 1st respondent, the omission of un-transmitted forms, was cured by uploading the said forms, onto the Public Portal. According to the IEBC, the transmission of the wrong images did not affect or invalidate the result contained in the statutory Forms 34A. Later, it was argued, access to the scanned forms was granted to the public through Website. [243] Still on transmission of results, the petitioners highlighted various discrepancies, for instance that there was transmission of results from slightly more than 11,000 polling stations other than gazetted polling stations contrary to Regulation 7. It was also alleged that the streaming of results commenced a few minutes after 5.oo p.m. being the official closing time for all polling stations. In addition, the petitioners questioned the streaming of results in constant percentages of 54% and 44% in favour of the 3rd respondent and the 1st petitioner, respectively. [244] The petitioners further claimed that there were numerous discrepancies between the results declared in Forms 34A and those in Forms 34B from various polling stations across the Country, contrary to Section 39 of the Elections Act, as read with Regulation 82 thus compromising the integrity of the election. [245] In response, the 1st and 2nd respondents, countered the accuracy in some of the allegations by providing contrary figures through a number of deponents. However, the said respondents also admitted that indeed there were discrepancies in the results in Forms 34A and Forms 34B spread across the Country but attributed them to human errors and fatigue of Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            102  |  P a g e