Act. Counsel also argued that any non-compliance with the law ought not to invalidate the election if the Court is satisfied that the election was substantially conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution. (viii) Alleged Specific Irregularities [87] IEBC refuted the petitioners’ claim that it established secret and ungazetted polling stations. It contended in that regard that pursuant to Regulation 7 (1)(c) of the Election (General) Regulations 2012, it published in Gazette Notice Number 6396 of 26th June, 2017 specifying the polling stations established in each constituency. The claim that results from any un-gazetted polling station were included in the final tally are therefore baseless, it submitted. [88] IEBC also stated that all Forms 34B were executed by duly gazetted and accredited constituency returning officers in accordance with the applicable Regulations. It contended in that context that it complied with the requirements of Regulation 5 of the Election (General) Regulations, 2012 and provided a list of persons proposed for appointment as presiding officers to political parties through the office of the Registrar of Political Parties. It is therefore not correct that a significant number of returns were signed by strangers, so it submitted. [89] It is furthermore the respondents’ case that all Forms 34A and 34B were signed and/or stamped as required under the law. They thus denied that a number of Forms 34B did not indicate the names of the returning officers and a number did not bear IEBC’s stamp or authentication stamp Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            35  |  P a g e