47 2.4.4.9. The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction on electoral disputes that fall within the ambit of the IEBC (Article 165(6) of the Constitution; and Jared Odoyo Okello v IEBC & 3 Others, Kisumu Election Petition No. 1 of 2013). 2.4.4.10. The High Court also has jurisdiction in relation to violations of the Electoral Code of Conduct. If after conducting investigations, the IEBC forms the opinion that there is need for further action in relation to a violation of the Electoral Code of Conduct, it can either refer the matter to the DPP or institute proceedings in the High Court under section 9 of the Electoral Code of Conduct (Sabina Wanjiru Chege v IEBC, Nairobi Constitutional Petition E073 of 2022; and IEBC v Sabina Wanjiru Chege, Civil Appeal E255 of 2022 (unreported)). 2.4.4.11. The High Court has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the PPDT, on points of law and fact (s 41(2), Political Parties Act). The High Court also has an appellate jurisdiction over EDR decisions of Magistrate’s Courts, limited to matters of law only (s 75(4) of the Elections Act, 2011). A person seeking to appeal a Magistrate’s Court’s interlocutory decision to the High Court must await the final hearing and determination of the election petition by the Magistrate’s Court. 2.4.4.12. Unlike the PPDT from which there is a statutory right of appeal, there is no express right of appeal from a decision of the IEBC NDRC to the High Court (Dennis Gakuu Wahome v IEBC and Others, Nairobi High Court Petition No. E321 of 2022 (Johnson Sakaja Koskei); Reuben Kigame Lichete v IEBC & Another, Constitutional Petition E275 of 2022 (unreported)). 2.4.4.13. Where disputants apply for a review of the court’s orders as derived from an EDR judgment, the court has held that such a review may only be granted to correct an ‘error apparent on the face of the record’ (Bob Micheni Njagi v Orange Democratic Movement, Nairobi High Court Election Petition Appeal No. 2 of 2017). It has previously been established that the ‘error or omission must be self-evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established’. (National Bank of Kenya Limited v Ndungu Njau, Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 211 of 1996). Editorial Note: In light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sammy Ndung’u Waity v IEBC & 3 Others Supreme Court Petition 33 of 2018, the High Court exercises jurisdiction over pre-election matters outside of the framework for electoral dispute resolution given by the Constitution and Elections Act. The fifth principle enunciated by the apex Court in this case permits a litigant to present a pre-election dispute ‘for resolution to the High Court, sitting as a judicial review Court, or in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(3) and (6) of the Constitution, even after the determination of an election petition’. This creates the possibility of an election issue being determined outside of an election court within the sui generis legal framework established for the resolution of electoral disputes. It also creates the possibility of electoral disputes being resolved outside the 6-month timeline established for EDR. As asserted by the Court of Appeal in Annie Wanjiku Kibeh v Clement Kungu Waibara & Another, Nairobi Civil Application No. E390 of 2021, the 6-month timeline for election appeals is not applicable to such cases. While there is no clear point on the applicability of the 6-month timeline at the High Court, save for cases brought under Article 105(2) of the Constitution, there is need for jurisprudential guidance from the apex Court on how to reconcile expeditious disposal of electoral disputes with the principles in Sammy Waity. BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION