election officials. They further contended that the discrepancies in question did not affect the result of the election. [246] The 1st and 2nd respondents added in further response, that the 11, 155 polling stations from which the impugned results were streamed were in areas which were not served by 3G and 4G network coverage. [247]The petitioners’ case, and the responses thereto by the respondents, have conjured in our minds, a puzzle of labyrinthine proportions regarding Forms 34A. In the face of a very clear and unambiguous Section 39(1C) of the Elections Act, what went wrong with this critical document? The case for the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent, in exercise of his responsibility as the returning officer of the presidential election, declared the results for the election of president before receiving all the Forms 34A from the 40,883 polling stations from across the country. Incomplete results, argued Mr. Otiende Amollo for the petitioners, could not be a basis for a valid declaration. The respondents’ answer to that assertion is that the results were declared on the basis of Forms 34B all of which had been received by the time the declaration was made. [248] In an affidavit sworn by Koitamet Ole Kina, in support of the petition, there is telling correspondence which we had referred to earlier but which we reproduce in the present context. On the 10th of August 2017, the deponent, acting on behalf of the petitioners, wrote to the 2nd respondent in the following words: “Your brief on the above subject at Bomas on 10th August, 2017 at around 9.00 pm refers. You informed Kenyans and the world at large that IEBC had Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            103  |  P a g e