[43] Finally, a General Election in Kenya comprises of six (6) dierent and separate elections held concurrently on the same day. Such elections are held by secret ballot and one cannot predetermine the voter turnout or how voters will vote in each election. None of the parties has agged anything so signicant that it would have aected the outcome of the Presidential Election vis á vis the other ve elections held on that day. We nd therefore that there were no unexplainable discrepancies between the votes cast for Presidential candidates and other elective positions. (vi) Whether the IEBC carried out the verication, tallying, and declaration of results in accordance with Article 138(c) and 138 (10) of the Constitution [44] This issue arises from the pleadings in all the Petitions as consolidated. Based on the said pleadings, the adavits sworn in support thereof, and the written and oral submissions by the parties, two viewpoints regarding the meaning, scope, and application of article 138(3)(c) and (10) of the Constitution have been advanced. [45] On the one hand, the petitioners submit that pursuant to the foregoing provisions, the role of verifying and tallying of votes as received from polling stations countrywide, is vested in the Commission as a corporate entity and not the Chairperson of the Commission. It is their argument that the Chairperson cannot undertake this task to the exclusion of other Commissioners. They submit that the language of article 138(3)(c), does not envisage a situation where the Chairperson, can arrogate to himself unfettered authority to verify and tally the results at the National Tallying Centre, without involving the other Commissioners. Such action, they contend, would not only be unconstitutional, but would be sucient ground without more, to nullify an election of a President-elect. In support of their argument, the petitioners cite the Court of Appeal decision in IEBC v Maina Kiai & 5 others as armed by this court in Raila 2017. The petitioners further submit that regulation 87(3) of the Elections (General) Regulations is unconstitutional, to the extent that it purports to vest the power of verication and tallying in the Chairperson of IEBC. [46] On the other hand, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents submit that the power to verify, tally, and declare results of a Presidential Election at the National Tallying Centre, is the exclusive preserve of the Chairperson of IEBC. According to them, there is nothing unconstitutional about regulation 87(3) of the Elections (General) Regulations. The said regulation, the respondents submit, makes no mention of Commissioners, other than the Chairperson. At any rate, the respondents argue, article 138 (3) (c) of the Constitution, does not envisage a situation where it is the Commissioners who personally undertake the task of verifying and tallying the results as entered onto the thousands of Forms 34A. Such an undertaking, would be humanly impossible, they submit. For good measure, the respondents submit that section 11A (a) of the IEBC Act provides that the Chairperson and members of the Commission are responsible for the formulation of policy and strategy of the Commission and oversight. In their view, the Act does not contemplate a situation where Commissioners would be directly involved in the verication and tabulation of Presidential Election results. The task of verication and tallying, submit the respondents, is executed by sta of the Commission under the direction and supervision of the Commission Secretary, who in turn reports to the Chairperson. [47] As to whether the Chairperson acted unilaterally in verifying and tallying the Presidential Election results at the National Tallying Centre, the petitioners claim that indeed, this is what happened. It is the petitioners’ case that the Chairperson, published Gazette Notice No 4956 of 2022 in which he designated himself as the ‘Presidential Returning Ocer’, a position unknown in law and the Constitution. Having done so, the petitioners state that the Chairperson proceeded to conduct the verication and tallying process, to the exclusion of the other Commissioners each of whom he had assigned peripheral roles unrelated to the verication and tallying exercise. kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/240578/ 21