same features were found missing. Counsel further questioned why agents of both petitioners and 3rd respondent proceeded to sign on the Forms if the security features were a legal prerequisite yet in some instances they were missing. He argued in that context that one cannot execute a document and turn back and say it did not have security features. [95] On the allegation that legitimate petitioners’ agents were thrown out of some polling stations, it was the respondents’ case that none of these claims are substantiated and no particulars whatsoever were provided as required by law. It was submitted specifically that the allegations made by one Mr. Wamuru, in his affidavit in support of the petition which were, at any rate not reported to the police, were of a general nature, false and mischievous. That the petitioners in any event neither identified the agents who were allegedly ejected nor the presiding officer(s) who allegedly ejected them. To the contrary, Immaculate Kassait and Marykaren Kigen deposed in their affidavits that the petitioners’ agents duly executed Forms 34A in the identified polling stations signifying the fact that there were no anomalies detected. [96] Regarding the petitioners’ alleged constant 11% difference between the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent’s election results, Immaculate Kassait deposed that the percentage ranged between a low of 9.095 to a high of 25.573. Hence there was no pre-conceived percentage that was constant. [97] On his part, the 3rd respondent, through Counsel Mr. Ngatia, submitted that there was no pre-convinced formula used in the Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            38  |  P a g e