5 to dispose Petitions; or unreasonable delays, resulting in ineffectual decisions and dismissal of petitions on grounds of technicality (Per Njoki Ndung’u SCJ (dissenting) in Evans Odhiambo Kidero & 4 Others v Ferdinand Ndung’u Waititu & 4 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 18 of 2014). 1.5.3. Ideally, rules of procedure ought to be handmaidens of justice (Microsoft Corporation v Mitsumi Computer Garage Ltd & Another, Nairobi High Court Civil Case No. 810 of 2001). In other words, rules of procedure are not an end in themselves. They are only but a means to an end, the end being the determination of disputes on their substantive merits. Accordingly, legal and procedural technicalities ought not to be elevated to a fetish or enforced in a manner that defeats the ends of justice (Microsoft Corporation v Mitsumi Computer Garage Ltd & Another, Nairobi High Court Civil Case No. 810 of 2001). 1.5.4. The courts’ past obsession with legal and procedural technicalities, together with inordinate delays that made election petitions lag in the courts until the subsequent election, gravely eroded public confidence in the Judiciary as an honest, independent and impartial arbiter of political disputes. This legacy contributed to the refusal by the aggrieved side to refer the disputed 2007 presidential election to the courts. The violence and civil strife that ensued following the disputed 2007 presidential election (the post-election violence) revealed that the absence of credible, effective and efficient EDR mechanisms can easily undermine the longterm viability of the Kenyan nation-state. 1.5.5. The Supreme Court has described the history of democracy and electoral justice in Kenya as follows: Kenya’s political history has been characterized by large-scale electoral injustice. Through acts of political zoning, privatization of political parties, manipulation of electoral returns, perpetration of political violence, commercialization of electoral processes, gerrymandering of electoral zones, highly compromised and incompetent electoral officials, and a host of other retrogressive scenarios, the country’s electoral experience has subjected our democracy to unbearable pain, and has scarred our body politic. As a result, free choice and fair competition, the holy grail of electoral politics, have been abrogated, and our democratic evolution, so long desired, has staggered and stumbled, indelibly stained by this unhygienic environment in which our politics is played (per Mutunga CJ in Gatirau Peter Munya v IEBC & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 2B of 2014). 1.5.6. According to the Kriegler Commission, for effective electoral dispute resolution, it is necessary to have flexibility and pragmatism and to keep an eye to political exigencies, even where this comes at the cost of strict legalism. Due to the politicisation of the Kenyan society and the doubt that existed about the judiciary’s impartiality, it was argued that the judiciary should not be unnecessarily exposed to the risk of being politicised or being seen to be politicised due to its involvement in political disputes. 1.5.7. Following the post-election violence of 2007-2008, Kenyans adopted a new constitution as one of the means for securing the long-term viability of the Kenyan nation-state. The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (the Constitution) introduced radical changes to the Kenyan electoral and EDR systems. The Constitution requires, inter alia: BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION