Maxwel Ochieng’ & another v Orange Democratic Movement [2017] eKLR 13. The 1st Respondent’s County Appeals Tribunal also found that the process was flawed and revoked the 2nd Respondent’s nomination certificate and ordered for the issuance of the same to the Claimant. However, we have an issue with this last order of the 1st Respondent Special County Appeals Tribunal. In other words, the question is, on what basis did the 1st Respondent order the Claimant to be issued with the final nomination certificate considering that the process opaque, unaccountable and inaccurate? 14. On the question of whether the 1st Respondent’s Special County Appeals Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant’s appeal lodged before it, we have the following to say. The 1st Respondent’s nomination rules establish County Appeals Tribunal and for sure do not make mention of a Special County Appeals Tribunal. Nonetheless, this Tribunal of the view that the mere use or the inclusion of the word “Special” next to the County Appeals Tribunal to make it Special County Appeals Tribunal does not deprive the said Appeals Tribunal of the jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute filed before it provided it relates to the just concluded party primaries of the 1st Respondent. Accordingly, the Claimant was within his rights to lodge his complaint and seek for redress from the 1st Respondent’s Special County Appeals Tribunal. 15. For the reasons advanced above, this Tribunal is persuaded by the Claimant’s arguments that the 1st Respondent was wrong to disobey its own decision dated 6th May 2017 and was not justified to issue the 2nd Respondent with the final nomination certificate. Orders 16. In the premises, this Tribunal orders as follows: a) That the Claimant’s case be and is hereby allowed. Page 5 of 6