from the well settled and solid foundation of law and jurisprudence as laid down by this Court in the 2013 Raila Odinga case and render the Section unconstitutional in as far as Article 140 of the Constitution is concerned. [180] The 3rd respondent through his advocate, Senior Counsel, Mr. Ahmednassir, contended that a party seeking the nullification of the presidential election, bears the burden of proving that not only was there non- compliance with the election law but also that the non-compliance affected the results of the election. In support of this submission, Counsel referred to the decision of this Court in the 2013 Raila Odinga case, the decision of the Supreme Court of Uganda in Amama Mbabazi v. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni & 2 Others 89 majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj90 and the Supreme Court of Nigeria decision in Abubakar v. Yar’adua91. [181] Mr. Kinyanjui learned Counsel for Prof. Wainaina, the 2nd interested party, submitted that the 2017 presidential elections were free and fair. He argued that no sufficient evidence had been tendered to oust Section 83 of the Act. Counsel argued that non-compliance with the law during the election ought not to invalidate the election if the Court is satisfied that the election was substantially conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution. Amama Mbabazi v. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni & 2 others PT. No. 01/2016. Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj 2012 SCC 55; [2012] 3SCR 76. 91 Abubakar v. Yar’adua [2009] ALL FWLR (PT. 457)1 SC. 89 90 Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            74  |  P a g e