results at the NTC. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent’s role is to tally and collate the results received at the NTC in Form 34C pursuant to Regulation 83 (2). In that context, in his supporting affidavit, the 2nd respondent deposed that between 8th and 11th August, 2017, he was present at the NTC where he tallied and validated the Forms 34B that were being electronically transmitted by the constituency returning officers and upon receipt of these Forms 34B, he proceeded to execute his mandate as by law provided. [66] Mr. Ezra Chiloba on his part deposed that IEBC unsuccessfully defended the case of Kenneth Otieno v. Attorney-General & Another 14 , which declared Section 44(8) of the Elections Act unconstitutional for establishing a technical committee to oversee the adoption of technology and implement use of that technology in the conduct of elections. The Court held that, the composition of the committee and the functions given to it threatened the structural independence of IEBC and hence was in conflict with Article 88 and 249(2) of the Constitution. The 1st respondent further asserts that it is unfair and malicious to accuse IEBC of filing Collins Kipchumba Tallam v. the Attorney-General15, to which it was not a party. [67] In his affidavit, Mr. James Muhati refuted the petitioners’ claim that IEBC did not verify the KIEMS system and instead deposed that the Commission undertook the verification exercise between May 10th and June 10th 2017. It was his further testimony therefore that IEBC fully and successfully deployed the use of ICT in the following manner: First, the 14 15 Kenneth Otieno v. Attorney-General & Another, Petition No. 127 of 2017; [2017] eKLR. Collins Kipchumba Tallam v. the Attorney-General, Petition No. 415 of 2016; Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            26  |  P a g e