31 2.3.4 Extension of Time in Magistrate’s Courts 2.3.4.1 Although there is no clear authority on this point, logical deduction from prevailing case law leads to the conclusion that magistrate’s courts, just like other courts and tribunals, do not have jurisdiction to extend the EDR timelines set out in the Constitution or the Elections Act, 2011 (Abdia Mohammed Oshow v IEBC & 3 Others, Marsabit Magistrates Court Election Petition 2 of 2017). This, however, does not apply to timelines prescribed in procedural rules or fixed by directions of the Court (Rule 19, Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017). Rule 19 of the Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petition Rules, 2017 grants an election court the power to extend and reduce the time required to do anything prescribed by the Rules or ordered by the court. This power is available to the Magistrate’s Court when sitting as an election court (Amani National Congress Party & Another v Hamida Yaroi Shek Nuri & Another, Election Petition Appeal 5 of 2018 & 1 of 2017 (Consolidated)). 2.4 Specific jurisdiction of Various Courts and Tribunals in EDR 2.4.0. The Kenyan EDR framework is characterised by a continuum of hierarchical institutions, each with a specific jurisdiction (Moses Mwicigi & 14 others v IEBC, Supreme Court Petition No. 1 of 2015; and Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & 15 Others v Attorney General & 7 Others, Nairobi Petition E090 of 2022 (consolidated)). These institutions include political parties; the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal (PPDT); the IEBC Nomination Disputes Resolution Committee (IEBC NDRC); Magistrate’s Courts, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The EDR jurisdiction of each of these institutions is outlined below. 2.4.1. Political Parties 2.4.1.0. The Political Parties Act envisions various means of resolving pre-election disputes under the Act. Accordingly, dispute resolution can be through the Political Parties Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanism, Registrar of Political Parties, Political Parties Tribunal and the High Court in appeal/review. 2.4.1.1 Political Parties Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanism 2.4.1.1.1 The Political Parties Act requires each political party to outline in its Constitution or Rules, an Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanism (IDRM) (s 9 of the Political Parties Act, as read with paragraph 23 of the Second Schedule thereto). A political party’s IDRM must contain provisions that respect and promote: (a) the democratic principles of good governance (Article 91(1)(d) of the Constitution); (b) human rights and fundamental freedoms and gender equality and equity (Article 91(1)(f) of the Constitution); (c) democracy, through free and fair elections (Article 91(1)(d) of the Constitution); (d) the principles of the Constitution and the rule of law (Article 91(1)(g) of the Constitution); and (e) the Electoral Code of Conduct (Article 91(1)(h) of the Constitution). 2.4.1.1.2 Each coalition agreement is also required to provide for an IDRM (s 40(3), Political Parties Act). In Salesio Mutuma Thuranira & 4 Others v Attorney General & 2 Others; Registrar of Political Parties & 4 Ohers (Interested Parties), Petition E043, E057 & E109 of 2022, the Court asserted: BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION