150 4.12.4.3 Although there is no provision barring such appeals, the absence of a provision permitting them was interpreted, by the Supreme Court, as evincing the intention of Parliament to limit appeals from the Magistracy to the High Court. In the case of Hamida Yaroi Shek Nuri v Faith Tumaini Kombe, Amani National Congress & IEBC, Supreme Court Petition No. 38 of 2018, the Supreme Court held: It has to be noted that, what Article 87 requires parliament to do, is not limited to the enactment of legislation setting “timelines” for the disposition of electoral disputes. The Article talks of “mechanisms for the timely” settlement of electoral disputes. As such, the setting of timelines in legislation is just but one of the mechanisms, for the timely settlement of electoral disputes. Other mechanisms, are discernible in the other provisions of the Elections Act, touching upon such other matters, as the form of petitions, manner of service of petitions, the scope of appeals, and in our view, the level of appeals among others. As long as these “mechanisms” are not inconsistent with, or violative of the provisions of the Constitution, and as long as they are in accord with Article 87 of the Constitution, their validity cannot be questioned. In this context, one of the mechanisms for the timely settlement of electoral disputes is by limiting, not the right of appeal, but the scope, and level of appeal, in election petitions. In this regard, Section 75 (4) of the Elections Act, does not limit the right of appeal emanating from an election petition, concerning the validity of the election of a member of a county assembly. The section in fact preserves the initial right of appeal to the High Court, but falls short of extending it to a second-tier level. To argue that, notwithstanding the non-provision for a second appeal in Section 75 (4) of the Elections Act, such right of appeal nonetheless subsists under Article 164 (4) (3) (a) of the Constitution, would be subversive of Article 87 of the Constitution. It is worth repeating that the Constitution cannot subvert itself. Indeed, what may appear as a limitation of the jurisdictional reach of Article 164 (3) (a), of the Constitution, is borne out of Article 87 of the same Constitution. The issue may very well be viewed differently, if what is in question, is a purely statutory limitation of appellate jurisdiction. It all depends on the nature and uniqueness of each case. This Court has held that, even at the level of the Supreme Court, not all election petition appeals, lie from the Court of Appeal to this Court. An intending appellant must satisfy the Court, that such an appeal meets the threshold delineated in Article 163 (4) (a) and (b) of the Constitution. The foregoing analysis leads us to the conclusion, in agreement with the Court of Appeal, that in the absence of an express statutory provision, no second appeal lies to the Court of Appeal, from the High Court, emanating from an election petition concerning the validity of the election of a member of county assembly. 4.13 Appeals to the Supreme Court 4.13.1 A person who intends to lodge an appeal to the Supreme Court must file a Notice of Appeal within 14 days of the date of the judgment or ruling of the Court of Appeal (Rule 36, Supreme Court Rules, 2020); and Naomi Wangechi Gitonga & 3 Others v IEBC & 4 Others, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 2 of 2014). Where the Court of Appeal makes a final decision in EDR but reserves or defers the reasons for the decision to a subsequent date, the time for filing the Notice of Appeal runs from the date of the decision rather than the date of the reasons for the decision (Richard Nyagaka Tong’i v Chris N. Bichage & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 17 of 2014). 4.13.2 Appeals to the Supreme Court must be filed within 30 days of filing the Notice of Appeal or within 30 days from the Grant of Certification, where certification is required (Rule 38, BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION