stations and 17 constituency tallying centres. In its letter of 15th August 2017, IEBC also admitted that it had not received authentic Forms 34A from 5,015 polling stations representing 3.5 million votes. Lastly, the petitioners claimed they had knowledge that more than 10, 000 Forms 34A were not available at the time of declaration of the results and that they were being scanned at Bomas and Anniversary Towers even during the pendency of this petition. (vi) Unprecedented and Contradictory Quantity of Rejected Votes [40] The petitioners took issue with the large number of rejected votes accounting for at least 2.6% of the total votes cast arguing that that has an effect on the final results and the outcome of the presidential election. In this regard, the petitioners urged the Court to reconsider its finding on rejected votes in Raila Odinga & 5 Others v. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 Others7 and hold that rejected votes should be taken into account in the computation to determine the threshold under Article 138(4) of the Constitution. [41] The First Interested Party, Dr. Ekuru Aukot, buttressed the petitioners’ case. He submitted that the massive non-compliance with the law by IEBC’s officials constitute grounds for nullifying the presidential election. He produced a report compiled by his party’s Chairman, Mr. Miruru Waweru on the irregularities committed by IEBC. Some of the alleged irregularities contained in the report included different Forms 34B Raila Odinga & 5 Others v. Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 Others, Petition No. 5 of 2013; [2013] eKLR. 7 Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            15  |  P a g e