case of Collins Kipchumba Tallam v. the AG3, is clear testimony that IEBC was not keen to electronically transmit election results. [26] Basing their submissions on those averments, counsel for the petitioners argued that the delay and/or failure to electronically transmit the results in the prescribed forms meant that IEBC’s conduct of elections was not simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable, and transparent contrary to Article 81(e)(iv) and (v) of the Constitution. Moreover, counsel further argued, the data on Forms 34A, the primary election results documents, was inconsistent with the one on Forms 34B as well as the numbers IEBC kept beaming on TV screens hence unverifiable. As a matter of fact, counsel argued, 10,056 polling stations had results submitted without Forms 34A. [27] The petitioners further urged that contrary to the Court of Appeal decision in Independent and Electoral Boundaries Commission v. Maina Kiai & 5 Others 4 [Maina Kiai case] the IEBC failed to electronically collate, tally and transmit the results accurately, and declared results per county thus failing to recognize the finality of the results at the polling stations. [28] Relying on the averments in the affidavits of Ole Kina Koitamet, Godfrey Osotsi and Olga Karani, counsel for the petitioners also contended that at the time of declaration of the results, IEBC did not have results from 10,000 polling stations representing approximately 5 million voters and 187 Forms 34B hence the declaration was invalid and illegal. 3  Collins Kipchumba Tallam v. the Attorney-General, Petition No. 415 of 2016.   Electoral and Boundaries Commission v. Maina Kiai & 5 Others, Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2017.   4  Independent Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            11  |  P a g e