would be as a result of inadvertent human errors during the transfer of
figures from Forms 34A to the KIEMS kits; and if there were, they did not
materially affect the outcome of the presidential elections.
[63] Upon transmission, it was submitted by the 1st and 2nd respondents
that in accordance with Section 39(1C) of the Elections Act, IEBC published
the images of Forms 34A and 34B on its public portal. They contended in
that regard that the petitioners confused the public portal where the Forms
34A and 34B were published with the ‘statistics’ that were displayed by the
media and instead they should have understood that all polling stations
transmitted the statistics of the results through KIEMS kits accompanied by
the electronic image of Forms 34A, and that at the time of declaration of the
results, the 1st and 2nd respondents had in their possession all the requisite
forms. Mr. Nyamodi said that what he called statistics were variously called
data in the respondents’ submissions.
[64] The 1st and 2nd respondents further relied on the affidavits of Wafula
Chebukati and Immaculate Kassait to make the point that the declaration of
results was based on the results contained in Forms 34B from each of the
290 constituencies and the diaspora as Form 34B is an aggregation of
Forms 34A in each constituency. That therefore the results declared by
IEBC were not affected by any variances or errors that may have occurred
at the point of data entry into KIEMS kits.
[65] It was also the respondents’ case that the role of the constituency
returning officer as set out in Regulation 83 (1) of the Elections (General)
Regulations is limited to tallying and verifying the count of the votes as
contained in Forms 34A from the polling stations and collating them in
Form 34B. Thereafter he declares the results and delivers to IEBC such
Presidential
Petition
No.
1
of
2017
25
|
P a g e