130 No. 628 of 2014; and Republic v Mark Lloyd Steveson, Kiambu High Court Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2016). The safeguards and conditions set out in sections 78A and 106A to 106I of the Evidence Act seek to ensure the authenticity and reliability of such evidence (Republic v Mark Lloyd Steveson, Kiambu High Court Criminal Revision No. 1 of 2016; and Millitonic Mwendwa Kimanzi Kitute v IEBC & 2 Others, Kitui Election Petition No. 1 of 2017). 4.8.3.1.2 In William Odhiambo Oduol v IEBC & 2 Others, Kisumu Election Petition No. 2 of 2012, the Court accepted the following submission on the need and rationale for a cautious approach to electronic evidence: electronic evidence presents unique characteristics which necessitate careful treatment. First, while alterations on [a] physical document are often immediately visible on its face, this is not the case with electronic material. An electronic document can be, and is often, modified in the process of collecting it as evidence. A common example occurs when a file or application is opened, or copied from one computer into another or into an external hard drive. Changes which are not often immediately visible occur. Second, compared with physical or other forms of exhibit evidence electronic evidence is relatively more difficult to detect and trace the signs of tampering. It can be changed or manipulated much more easily than paper or other forms of evidence without having any obvious trace of such alteration. Third, computer equipment runs on an artificial intelligence which receives, interprets and applies human commands. This artificial intelligence has been known to go awry. System crashes, viruses, and/or botnets often occur, compromising the integrity of the material captured, preserved or presented using a computer. Finally, the capturing, preserving and presenting of evidence in electronic form requires a measure of technical knowledge in the operation of the electronic equipment. 4.8.3.1.3 Although the courts often strictly enforce the rules relating to the admissibility of electronic evidence, an election court may excuse non-compliance with those rules where the electronic evidence is relevant and objections to its admissibility are based on merely technical grounds (Mable Muruli v Wycliffe Ambetsa Oparanya & 3 Others, Kakamega High Court Election Petition No. 5 of 2013). Moreover, a court may, in the interest of justice, and as a matter of discretion, give a litigant an opportunity to rectify a breach of the rules relating to the admissibility of electronic evidence. In Nonny Gathoni Njenga & Another v Catherine Masitsa & Another, Nairobi High Court Civil Case No. 490 of 2013, for instance, the Court allowed a party to cure an omission to include the certificate envisioned by section 106B(4) of the Evidence Act instead of excluding the electronic evidence in question. 4.8.3.1.4 In the case of Samwel Kazungu Kambi v Nelly Ilongo the Returning Officer, Kilifi County & 2 Others, Malindi Election Petition 4 & 5 of 2017, the High Court summarised the provisions of section 106B of the Evidence Act as follows: Under Section 106B, for an electronic record to meet the standards for production as an exhibit, the computer should be demonstrated to have been under the control of a particular person during the relevant period. The information ought to have been fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the activities that need to be proved. There is also need to establish that at the material time the computer was operating properly but in case of any defect it should not have been to the extent that it would affect the electronic record or its accuracy. Another condition is that the electronic record should be derived from information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the activities in question. BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION