56 3.1.5 Secondly, Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution requires the courts to promote alternative dispute resolution procedures, which cannot be achieved if the courts were to readily entertain disputes which ought to be resolved in other forums (Dickson Mukwelukeine v Attorney General & 4 Others Nairobi High Court Petition No. 390 of 2012; Godfrey Mwaki Kimathi & 2 Others v Jubilee Alliance Party & 3 Others, Nairobi High Court Petitions Nos. 102 and 145 of 2015; Charles Ong’ondo Were v Joseph Oyugi Magwanga & 2 Others, Homa Bay Petition 1 of 2013; Josiah Taraiya Kipelian Ole Kores v David Ole Nkedianye & 3 Others, Nairobi Election Petition 6 of 2013; and Republic v IEBC Ex parte Charles Ondari Chebet, Nakuru High Court Judicial Review Application No. 3 of 2013). It is only if dissatisfied with the decisions of these mechanisms that a litigant can approach the High Court in exercise of its judicial review or supervisory jurisdiction (not an election court) for a review of the decision (Jared Odoyo Okello v IEBC & 3 Others, Kisumu Election Petition No. 1 of 2013; John Ndirangu v Commission on Administrative Justice & Another, Civil Appeal 257 of 2014; Clement Kungu Waibara v Annie Wanjiku Kibeh, Kiambu Election Petition 1 of 2017; and Ahmed Abdullahi Mohamad & Another v Mohamed Abdi Mohamed & 2 Others, Nairobi High Court Election Petition 14 of 2017 (consolidated with Garissa High Court Election Petition 3 of 2017)). 3.1.6 On the other hand, the Preservative School propounded the view that, despite the existence of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms/organs (Parties’ IDRMs, PPDT, IEBC), the election court is not divested of jurisdiction to determine pre-election disputes. Election courts have held that they had jurisdiction to entertain pre-election disputes notwithstanding the nonexhaustion of the party IDRM, PPDT and IEBC mechanisms, provided that such disputes went to the root of the election (Karanja Kabage v Joseph Kiuna Kariambegu Ng’ang’a & 2 Others, Nakuru Election Petition No. 12 of 2013; Godffrey Mwaki Kimathi & 2 Others v Jubilee Alliance Party & 3 Others Petition 102 and 145 of 2015; Jared Odoyo Okello v IEBC & 3 Others, Kisumu Election Petition No. 1 of 2013; Mohamed Dado Hatu v Dhadho Gaddae Godhana & 3 Others, Garsen Election Petition 1 of 2017; Armstrong Mwandoo Kiwoi & Another v Granton Graham Samboja & 7 Others, Voi Election Petition 1 of 2017; Kennedy Moki v Hon Rachael Kaki Nyamai & 2 Others, Nairobi Election Petition Appeal 2 of 2018; and Silverse Lisamula Anami v IEBC & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition 30 of 2018). 3.1.7 There are two main reasons for this. The first is that an election is a process, as opposed to an event, comprising multiple stages. Accordingly, any serious malpractice, error or irregularity which impacts on the fairness, integrity or credibility of an election will vitiate the election irrespective of whether it happened before or after the date of the election (In the Matter of the Principle of Gender Representation in the National Assembly and the Senate, Supreme Court Advisory Opinion No. 2 of 2012). In William Odhiambo Oduol v IEBC & 2 Others, Election Kisumu Petition No. 2 of 2013, the Court held as follows: …the 1st and 2nd Respondents submitted that this court does not have jurisdiction to deal with whatever acts of fraud, malpractice, irregularity and breach that may have occurred during nominations and campaigns; that the jurisdiction of the court is limited only to the acts that may have taken place during voting, counting, tallying and declaration of results. He relied on Article 88 (4) (e) [of the Constitution] that deals with settlement of [pre]electoral disputes…Once again, an election is a process and not an event…I hope I have said enough to show that the contention that what happens during campaigns does not concern an election petition court is without any legal basis. In any case, what I have said in the foregoing in relation to what constitutes a free and fair election, and the meaning of section 83, clearly show that what happens prior to actual voting can affect the integrity of the election and therefore a court dealing with a challenge to that election can deal with issues prior to the voting. BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION