80 High Court Election Petition No. 120 of 2013; Mumo Matemu v Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance & 5 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2012; Marson Integrated Ltd v Minister for Public Works & Another, High Court Petition No. 252 of 2012; Benson Riitho Mureithi v J. W. Wakhungu & 2 Others, Nairobi High Court Petition No. 19 of 2014; Commission on Administrative Justice v John Ndirangu Kariuki & IEBC, Constitutional Petition No. 408 of 2013; and Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Granton Graham Samboja & Another; Kenyatta University & Another (Interested Parties), Constitutional Petition 382 of 2017. However, since the petitions in the Omtatah case were general in nature, the Court declined to engage in harmonisation in the abstract. In the words of the Court at para 80: Having considered the entirety of Petition Nos E090 of 2022, E168 of 2022 and E221 of 2022, we hold the view that the petitions are general in nature, raise issues without reference to concrete facts, do not allege any wrong doing against a specific person and do not have specific respondents against whom such relief may be granted. The petitions only beseech the court to pronounce itself on abstract and clearly academic questions. We reject this entreaty. 3.5.7.5 Moreover, since eligibility issues fall within the ambit of the IEBC, the Court invited the parties to exhaust that mechanism before approaching the High Court. 3.5.7.6 In Republic v IEBC & Another Ex Parte Paul Karungo Thang’wa, Judicial Review No 2 of 2022 (unreported), the High Court reasserted that the right to contest elective office provided that all possibility of appeal or review had to be exhausted: [70] And if the reason for refusal to clear the Exparte Applicant was disqualification under article 75 of the Constitution, it provides that a person who has been dismissed or otherwise removed from office for contravention of provisions specified in clause (2) is disqualified from holding any other state office. [71] It is not however disputed that the then Governor did not dismiss the Exparte Applicant following resolution by the County Assembly for him to be removed or dismissed. The Exparte Applicant ceased to hold office following impeachment of the Governor in compliance with Article 179 (7) of the Constitution which provides that if a vacancy arises in the office of County Governor the members of the County Executive Committee appointed under clause (2) (b) cease to hold office. From the foregoing it would not be right to conclude that the Exparte Applicant was removed from office. [72] but even if one was to consider that the Exparte Applicant was removed from office, documents have been attached to supporting affidavit which confirm that the Exparte Applicant filed appeal way before that communique was issued by the Chairman IEBC and Article 99 (3) provide that a person is not disqualified under clause (2) unless all possibility of appeal or review of the relevant sentence has been exhausted. [73] I agree with the counsel for that the Exparte Applicant that he is entitled to benefit from Article 99 of the Constitution which gives a party opportunity to exhaust appeal process if appeal has been filed challenging decision that disqualify the party from vying for a political position. 3.5.7.7 The eligibility of a gubernatorial candidate who had been impeached but whose appeal was pending as provided for in Article 193(3) of the Constitution, was asserted in Mike Gideon Sonko v Swalha Ibrahim Yusuf & Others, Mombasa High Court Petition No. E027 of 2022: [110] There is no gainsaying that the Petitioner was impeached on 17th December 2022 and that his Petition to the High Court and appeal to the Court of Appeal were dismissed. BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION