Constitution, curtailed the 1st respondent’s ability to change, amend or alter the results transmitted from the Constituency. According to him therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Maina Kiai case extinguished the concept of provisional results. [253] Consequently, the numbers manually entered into the KIEMS kit at the close of polling, and transmitted simultaneous to the CTC and the NTC, bore no status in law. They were mere statistics, although, as Mr. Muhati stated in his affidavit, the presiding officer had to show the agents present the entries made for confirmation before transmission. [254] Mr. Nyamodi further explained that the completion of the transmission of the image of Forms 34A was dependent on the availability of 3G or 4G network coverage. In respect of areas lacking 3G or 4G network coverage, the respondents established alternative mechanisms to ensure completion in transmission of the image of the Form 34A. The procedure adopted in the transmission and tallying of results of the presidential election was in conformity with the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Maina Kiai case. [255] On the basis of this process, Counsel submitted that the petitioners’ allegation that the 1st respondent deliberately pre-determined and set itself on a path of subverting the law by being a law unto itself, was unfounded. In addition, Counsel submitted that the determination by the Court of Appeal on the finality of presidential election results declared by the constituency returning officer also changed the structure of Form 34C. Regulation 87(3)(b) for avoidance of doubt provides that: “upon receipt of Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            106  |  P a g e