well as watermarks. Counsel further argued that the petitioner did not challenge the numbers of the votes and had not alleged that any of the figures contained in the forms was incorrect. Counsel thus submitted that the results as announced captured and represented the will of the Kenyan people and urged the Court to dismiss this petition. [356] A number of conclusions/observations may be made from this exercise: Firstly, the Form 34C, that was availed for scrutiny was not original. Whereas the copy availed for scrutiny was certified as a copy original, no explanation was forthcoming to account for the whereabouts of the original Form. [357] Regulation 87(3) obligates the 2nd respondent to tally and complete Form 34C and to sign and date the forms and make available a copy to any candidate or chief agent present. This regulation presupposes that the Chairman retains the original. The Court is mindful that the 2nd respondent was required to avail the original Form 34C for purposes of access and to this extent the 2nd respondent did not. [358] Secondly, turning to the Forms 34B, the Court notes that whereas the Registrar received 291 forms representing 290 Constituencies and the diaspora, it was explained that the results relating to prisons were collated alongside those of their respective Counties as the prisons fall within Constituencies where they are located. This was also noted by the Registrar of this Court in her report. [359] The Court notes further that from the report on Forms 34B, the Registrar outrightly made an observation that some of the forms were Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            153  |  P a g e