183 (c) All applications for striking out an election petition for want of jurisdiction, or for any other reason, must be made and determined within the constitutional and statutory timelines for the resolution of electoral disputes. In this regard, it is for the trial Court, to make and enforce such case management orders, so as to meet this objective. (d) Appeals on interlocutory applications, other than for striking out in circumstances explained in (b) and (c) above, should await the final determination of the whole petition before the trial Court. (e) In exceptional circumstances, an appellate Court may dispose of an appeal arising from an interlocutory application filed and determined by the trial Court while the substantive matter is still ongoing at the trial Court. In doing so, the timeframe question as explained above must always be borne in mind. 6.3.1.8 In light of these guiding principles, it is hoped that in subsequent cases regarding interlocutory appeals, there will be a consistent approach at the High Court as well as at the Court of Appeal. 6.3.1.9 Appeals are limited to ‘matters of law’ (Ndwiga Steve Mbogo v IEBC & 2 Others, Nairobi Election Petition No. 10 of 2017) and what amounts to a point of law is not dependent on the appellation given by the party raising it (Cyprian Awiti & Another v IEBC & 3 Others, Kisumu Election Petition Appeal No. 5 of 2018). The Supreme Court set out the guidelines for what amounts to a matter of law in the Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 2B of 2014, as follows: [80] From the foregoing review of the comparative judicial experience, we would characterize the three elements of the phrase “matters of law” as follows: a. the technical element: involving the interpretation of a constitutional or statutory provision; b. the practical element: involving the application of the Constitution and the law to a set of facts or evidence on record; c. the evidentiary element: involving the evaluation of the conclusions of a trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record. [81] Now with specific reference to Section 85A of the Elections Act, it emerges that the phrase “matters of law only”, means a question or an issue involving: a. the interpretation, or construction of a provision of the Constitution, an Act of Parliament, Subsidiary Legislation, or any legal doctrine, in an election petition in the High Court, concerning membership of the National Assembly, the Senate, or the office of County Governor; b. the application of a provision of the Constitution, an Act of Parliament, Subsidiary Legislation, or any legal doctrine, to a set of facts or evidence on record, by the trial Judge in an election petition in the High Court concerning membership of the National Assembly, the Senate, or the office of County Governor; c. the conclusions arrived at by the trial Judge in an election petition in the High Court concerning membership of the National Assembly, the Senate, or the office of County Governor, where the appellant claims that such conclusions were based on “no evidence”, or that the conclusions were not supported by the established facts or evidence on record, or that the conclusions were “so perverse”, or so illegal, that no reasonable tribunal would arrive at the same; it is not enough for the appellant to contend that the trial Judge would probably have arrived at a different conclusion on the basis of the evidence. BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION