presidential election with such serious irregularities which, standing alone would also invalidate the election. Section 83 provides that: “No election shall be declared to be void by reason of non-compliance with any written law relating to that election if it appears that the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution and in that written law or that the noncompliance did not affect the result of the election.” [172] Both Messrs. Mutakha Kangu and Paul Mwangi, counsel for the petitioners, urged this Court to depart from its interpretation of Section 83 of the Elections Act, in the 2013 Raila Odinga case. Counsel urged that by following the Nigerian case of Buhari v. Obasanjo84, the Court had devalued the effect of this Section. In that case, the Supreme Court of Nigeria in interpreting the statutory version of Section 83 stated thus: “The burden is on petitioners to prove that noncompliance has not only taken place but also has substantially affected the result….There must be clear evidence of non-compliance, then, that the noncompliance has substantially affected the election.” [173] It was counsel’s submission that the approach taken by the Supreme Court of Nigeria meant that for a Court to void an election, a petitioner would have to prove both limbs of the provision. Not only would one have to prove that the impugned election was not conducted in accordance with the principles of a written law relating to the election; the petitioner would also have to prove that such non-compliance affected the result of the election. Such an approach, argued counsel, was not only onerous to a 84 Buhari v. Obasanjo (2005) CLR 7(k) (SC).   Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            71  |  P a g e