58 pre-election dispute and chooses through any action or omission, not to present the same for resolution to the IEBC or PPDT, such dispute shall not be a ground in a petition to the election Court. e. The action or inaction in (d) above shall not prevent a person from presenting the 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. f. In determining the validity of an election under Article 105 of the Constitution or Section 75(1) of the Elections Act, an election court may look into a pre-election dispute if it determines that such dispute goes to the root of the election and that the petitioner was not aware or could not have been aware of the facts forming the basis of that dispute before the election. 3.1.11 In the case of Silverse Lisamula Anami v IEBC & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition 30 of 2018, the Supreme Court held as follows: How do we resolve the apparent conflicting positions taken by the Court of Appeal and election Courts? Our view is that Articles 88(4)(e) and 105(1) and (3) must be read holistically and that whereas the IEBC and PPDT are entitled, nay, empowered by the Constitution and Statute to resolve pre-election disputes including nominations, there are instances where the election Court in determining whether an election is valid, may look to issues arising during the pre-election period only to the extent that they have previously not been conclusively determined, on merits, by the IEBC, PPDT or 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. Where a matter or an issue has been so determined, then the election Court cannot assume jurisdiction as if it were an appellate entity since that jurisdiction is not conferred on it by the Constitution. 3.1.12 The two decisions quoted above would later be applied in the case of Mohamed Abdi Mahamud v Ahmed Abdullahi Mohamad & 3 Others; Ahmed Ali Muktar (Interested Party), which similarly turned on the issue of the election court’s jurisdiction to entertain a petition founded on a ground that had been determined by the IEBC prior to the nomination. 3.1.13 The ensuing sections of this Chapter outline the prevailing jurisprudence on the settlement of distinct types of pre-election disputes. 3.2 Delimitation of Boundaries 3.2.1 The IEBC must review the names and boundaries of constituencies at intervals of not less than eight years and not more than 12 years (Article 89(2) of the Constitution). The IEBC must also review the number, names and boundaries of counties periodically (Article 89(3) of the Constitution). Where a general election is to be held within 12 months of a review, the new boundaries do not take effect for purposes of that election. 3.2.2 Parliament cannot enact legislation that takes away the discretion conferred on the IEBC under Article 89 of the Constitution (Attorney General & 2 Others v David Ndii & 79 Others, Supreme Court Petition 12 of 2021 (Consolidated with Petitions 11 and 13 of 2021)). In particular, Parliament cannot enact a law that guarantees every county a minimum number of wards, as such a move takes away the discretion conferred on the IEBC under Article 89(5), (6) and (7) of the Constitution (Rishad Hamid Ahmed & Another v IEBC, Mombasa High Court Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2016). BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION