The nine issues at the centre of Raila-Ruto poll victory dispute

In their case, Raila and Karua argue that the servers and Kenya Integrated Election Management System (Kiems) kits as deployed by IEBC were incapable of delivering a credible election.

"The election and the 'result' purportedly declared therefrom unilaterally by the 2nd respondent (Chebukati) was so badly compromised that it cannot be characterised as that of an independent body," Raila and Karua's lawyers argue, adding that evidence shows that third parties and senior employees of the IEBC were acting in connivance.

In their final written submissions filed before the apex court yesterday, Raila and Karua argue that the presidential election petition was a repeat of the 2017 blunders that led the court to declare that President Uhuru Kenyatta's win was null and void.

But in his reply, Dr Ruto argues that Raila and Karua's witnesses lied under oath that the system was hacked and alterations done on forms 34A and 34B when all the candidates had access to original forms uploaded from the polling stations.

He also disputed claims that his agents altered and dumped 11,000 forms 34A in the IEBC portal within eight minutes, stating that it was humanly impossible for the bulky forms to upload within a short time.

"Our conclusion is that the petitioners falsified logs in support of their claims that we had an external address to hack into the IEBC system and infiltrate it with altered forms. They have submitted similar logs as the ones they did in 2017 to mislead the court," said Ruto

On the failure of the Kiems kits, Ruto swears that IEBC had put a complementary system in place to facilitate the identification of voters, and that allegations of low voter turnout in Kakamega and Makueni cannot be attributed to these failures.

Chebukati also denies that the system was hacked, saying the system was foolproof and no alterations were done. His claim is supported by IEBC staff Abdi Guliye and Boya Molu.

Azimio la Umoja One Kenya Coalition presidential candidate Raila Odinga. [File, Standard]

Then there is the matter of whether IEBC verified, tallied, and declared results as required by Articles 138 (3)(C) and 138 (10) of the Constitution.

Raila and Karua argue that Chebukati did not verify, tally, and declare the results from 27 constituencies.

According to Chebukati, Mr Guliye was scheduled to announce the results before chaos broke out at the Bomas of Kenya. Ruto also says that numbers from all constituencies were tallied and announced.

Then there is the contentious issue is whether Ruto attained 50 per cent plus one votes of all ballots cast on August 9. Raila and Karua insist there is evidence that IEBC's numbers do not add up, and there are instances where forms were manipulated for a Ruto win.

They claim that the margin with which Ruto was said to have met the threshold was only 0.49 per cent of the total number of registered voters which was only 69,000 votes. Raila and Karua say that the mathematical differences and errors reveal that votes were systematically recalibrated to benefit Ruto. IEBC, however, asserts that it carried out a clean and fair election, while Ruto argues he beat Raila fair and square.

The last issue is what orders should the court issue after hearing all parties. Raila and Karua are seeking a forensic scrutiny, re-tallying, and thereafter be declared the winners. They are also asking the court to find that IEBC is dysfunctional and cannot conduct a credible election.

IEBC and Ruto, on the other hand, are asking the apex court to dismiss the presidential petition and confirm that Ruto was validly elected as president-elect.