of an election must adhere to. In this regard, counsel cited the case of Speaker of the Senate & Another v. Attorney-General & 4 Others40, where the Court was emphatic that procedures prescribed in the Constitution must be adhered to. Hence, it was urged in the alternative that if Section 83 is to be applied to post 2010 circumstances, it cannot be read to oust a constitutional imperative or to regulate any aspect of the Constitution. Consequently, it was the Society’s submission that a narrow reading of Section 83 which confines the provision to determination of validity premised on an irregularity or technicality is good law. [124] Counsel further submitted that while Article 140(3) of the Constitution requires this Court to determine whether a presidential election is valid, Section 83 of the Elections Act instead relates to voiding an election. Counsel contended that “invalid” connotes the existence of something that can be revived, while “void” has the essence of nothingness. It was therefore the submission of the Law Society of Kenya that Section 83 is not applicable to the resolution of a presidential election dispute in that context. That the test of invalidating an election is provided for under Article 81 of the Constitution and not Section 83 of the Elections Act, which ignores fundamental constitutional principles. G. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION [125] The main issues for determination as crystallized from the petition, the responses thereto and the written as well as oral submissions by counsel, are as follows: 40  Speaker of the Senate & another v. Attorney-General & 4 others, Reference No. 2 of 2013; (2013) eKLR.   Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            50  |  P a g e