91 is evidence that many presiding officers, deputy presiding officers and polling clerks participated as electoral officials in the PNU nomination…The participation by ECK in the nomination of a political party that would later contest in the general elections was against the principles governing the conduct of elections and especially as espoused in the Code of Conduct that ECK itself promulgated prohibiting any of its officials to be associated openly with a political party. The participation by ECK in the parliamentary nomination of PNU political party was contrary to its core function of being an electoral [management] body that should be considered as independent and impartial in the conduct of elections. It was no wonder that the people of this nation lost faith with ECK during the subsequently conducted general elections of 2007...In the case of Juja constituency, nd ECK, the predecessor of the 2 respondent, cannot absolve itself of the allegation made by the petitioner that by virtue of its participation in the PNU parliamentary nomination, an impression was created that it was partial to PNU political party during nd the general elections. Unfortunately for the 2 respondent, as an electoral body that is supposed to conduct elections in a free, fair and impartial manner, any association with any of the contesting political parties, however innocent or however justifiable in the circumstances, will leave it with the tag of being partial to that political party, more so, if that political party is in power. 3.6.2.13 Although candidates for Deputy Governor (and presumably candidates for Deputy President) are not directly elected, the position is an elective office (Josiah Taraiya Kipelian Ole Kores v Dr. David Ole Nkedianye & 3 Others, Nairobi Election Petition No. 6 of 2013). Moreover, since the nomination of a candidate for the office of Governor (and presumably the office of President) cannot be separated from that of the Deputy Governor, an election court can entertain disputes as to the qualification of the Deputy Governor (Josiah Taraiya Kipelian Ole Kores v Dr. David Ole Nkedianye & 3 Others, Nairobi Election Petition No. 6 of 2013). 3.7 Disputes arising from nominations 3.7.1 This role is shared among political parties, IEBC, PPDT, High Court and Court of Appeal. 3.7.2 At the political party level, disputes are resolved through the individual political party IDRM. Each political party’s IDRM must be independent of the party leadership and other party institutions, and must conclude all disputes presented to it within 30 days from the date of nominations. 3.7.3 The IEBC is mandated to settle electoral disputes arising out of nominations but excluding election petitions and disputes subsequent to the declaration of results (Article 88(4)(e) of the Constitution). Section 74(2) of the Elections Act obligates the IEBC to resolve disputes within 10 days of their presentation. 3.7.4 Persons aggrieved by party nomination processes are required to lodge disputes at their individual parties’ IDRMs and have them determined by the IDRMs before moving the PPDT, High Court and Court of Appeal (in that order) (Section 40(2), Political Parties Act). The PPDT is under a duty to determine disputes before it expeditiously and, in any event, not later than 3 months from the date of their filing (Section 41(1), Political Parties Act). 3.7.5 A person aggrieved by the decision of the IEBC NDRC may seek judicial review or activate the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 165. It is not open to a party who seeks a review at the High Court to raise new issues that were not determined by the IEBC. In Republic BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION