(iv) Substantial Non-compliance, Irregularities and Improprieties that Affected the Results [74] The respondents submitted that the alleged inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Forms 34A and 34B were minor, inadvertent and in their totality did not materially affect the declared results. They thus urged the Court to find that the petitioners have not substantiated the claim that the said irregularities affected at least 7 million votes. [75] The respondents’ case in this regard was supported by the 2nd interested party, Prof. Wainaina who, through his counsel, Mr. Kinyanjui, submitted that the alleged irregularities were not proved and did not affect the results in any event. (v) Voting, Counting and Tabulation of Results [76] It was urged by the respondents on the above issue that the results from the polling stations and the constituency tallying centres were counted, tabulated and accurately collated in compliance with Article 86 (b) and (c) of the Constitution as read together with the Elections Act. The respondents argued therefore that there were no inconsistencies in the votes cast as captured in Form 34A and Form 34B and averred that the results in Forms 34B included all polling stations within constituencies. [77] The 3rd respondent, through the affidavit of Winnie Guchu also contended that upon the conclusion of voting, the counting exercise commenced in the presence of all agents present, observers, police officers and all other authorized persons. She further stated that according to the Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            30  |  P a g e