the Elections Act and Regulations, hence that decision was a correct interpretation of the law. All respondents thus urged the Court not to depart from it. [80] In her affidavit, Winnie Guchu further stated that in a few polling stations, presiding officers inserted the number of registered voters in the column reserved for rejected votes but the correct numbers of votes each candidate garnered were not affected. However, she also contended that since the final results were declared on the basis of the 290 Forms 34B which had been compiled from the physical Forms 34A, any error of transmission did not occur and/or affect the results. (vii) Interpretation and Application of Section 83 of the Election Act [81] The 1st and 2nd respondents submitted that preponderance of legal authorities shows that, the non-compliance with the law alone, without evidence that the electoral process or the results had been materially or fundamentally affected is not a basis for invalidating an electoral outcome. Some of the cases cited were the 2013 Raila Odinga case, Hassan Ali Joho v. Nyange & Another18, and John Kiarie Waweru v. Beth Wambui Mugo & 2 Others19. Comparatively, they cited the Botswana case of Pilane v. Molomo & Another20, and the Nigerian cases of Hassan Ali Joho v. Nyange & another, (2008) 3KLR (EP) 500. John Kiarie Waweru v. Beth Wambui Mugo & 2 Others, Petition No. 13 of 2008; (2008) eKLR. 20 Pilane v. Molomo & another, (1990) BLR 214 (HC). 18 19 Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            32  |  P a g e