198. Flowing from the above discussion, there is no doubt that the impugned decision is an administrative action. I say so because the decision affected the legal rights and interests of political parties and the general public. Therefore, the decision had to pass the constitutional and statutory tests of lawfulness, reasonableness and procedural fairness. 199. On the legality of the impugned decision, there is no doubt that the Constitution and the law accords the Commission the power to conduct elections and referenda and the regulation and efficient supervision of elections and referenda, including the nomination of candidates for elections. 200. On whether the impugned decision was reasonable or arbitrary, a look at the concept of arbitrariness is crucial. 201. The Court of Appeal in Malindi Civil Appeal 56 of 2014 Mtana Lewa v Kahindi Ngala Mwagandi [2015] eKLR referred to the Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition that defined arbitrariness in the following manner: in it connotes a decision or an action that is based on individual discretion, informed by prejudice or preference, rather than reason or facts. 202. The High Court in Civil Suit No. 3 of 2006 Kasimu Sharifu Mohamed vs. Timbi Limited [2011] eKLR referred to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary A. S. Horby Sixth Edition Edited by Sally Wehmeiner which defines the term ‘arbitrary in the following way: the term arbitrary in the ordinary English language means an action or decision not seeming to be based on a reason, system and sometimes, seeming unfair. 203. The Supreme Court of China in Sharma Transport vs. Government of A. Palso (2002) 2 SCC 188 had the occasion to interrogate the meaning and import of the term ‘arbitrarily’. The Court observed as follows: The expression ‘arbitrarily’ means: in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not founded in the nature of things, nonJudgment – Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petitions No. E211 of 2022 & JR No. E071 OF 2022 Page 51 of 59