Kenya v. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 Others33. [108] It was his submission that the above reforms were made in an effort to ensure that the technology, restricted to biometric voter registration, biometric voter identification and electric result transmission system, would pave way for free and fair elections administered in an efficient, simple, accurate, verifiable, secure accountable and transparent manner. [109] Thirdly, in regard to rejected/spoilt votes cast, the Attorney General submitted that in terms of Article 138 (4) of the Constitution, the ‘phenomena’ of rejected votes is still a continuing concern in developing jurisprudence in Kenya but nonetheless he urged that the Court’s decision in the 2013 Raila Odinga case on the subject case remains good law and should not be departed from. [110] Comparatively, he referred to Sections 47-50 of the Representation of the People’s Act 1983 of the United Kingdom, in urging that a vote is included in deciding the election of a candidate only where a clear preference for that candidate is indicated; in New Zealand, Sections 178179 of the Electoral Act 1993 makes a distinction between a vote and an informal vote where informal votes are rejected and not included in the vote; and finally in South Africa where Section 47(3) of the Electoral Act 1993 provides for the procedure for the rejection of votes and Regulation 25 of the Election Regulation 2004, which indicates that rejected ballots are not counted as part of the votes. National Super Alliance (NASA) Kenya v. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 Others, Civil Appeal No 258 of 2017. 33 Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            44  |  P a g e