25 issues must be counterbalanced. The first is the principle of timeliness in the resolution of electoral disputes as held in Article 87(1) of the Constitution. The second principle is access to justice as embodied in Article 48 of the Constitution (Hassan Nyanje Charo v Khatib Mwashetani & 3 Others, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 15 of 2014). While timelines and timeliness are vital to effective and efficient governance under the Constitution, the Court has an eternal mandate to consider individual cases under considerations of justice. Therefore, where it is clear that an applicant has exercised all due diligence but has been unable to comply with timelines due to a failure by ‘sluggish judicial machinery’ to avail to him/her the requisite appeal papers, an extension of time can be granted (Hassan Nyanje Charo v Khatib Mwashetani & 3 Others, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 15 of 2014). 2.3.1.3 Such was the case in Bernard Kibor Kitur v Alfred Kiptoo Keter v IEBC Supreme Court Petition Application 27 of 2018, where there was uncertainty as to whether time was to be calculated from the time of lodging the Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal registry or from the time the notice was transmitted to the Supreme Court registry. It was also unclear whether the computation included public holidays and weekends. The submission of documents was done on the last day of filing, which happened to be the last day of the court’s recess. The court, guided by its decision in Charo v Mwashetani Supreme Court Application 15 of 2014, ruled that there was no inordinate delay in bringing the appeal and that responding appropriately to individual claims as dictated by compelling considerations of justice, it was proper to allow the application. 2.3.1.4 In Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Salat v IEBC & 7 Others, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 16 of 2014, the Supreme Court gave the following guiding principles that a court should consider in exercising its discretion when determining applications for extension of time: i. Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court; ii. A party who seeks for extension of time has the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court; iii. Whether the court should exercise the discretion to extend time, is a consideration to be made on a case to case basis; iv. Whether there is a reasonable reason for the delay. The delay should be explained to the satisfaction of the Court; v. Whether there will be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension is granted; vi. Whether the application has been brought without undue delay; and vii. Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest should be a consideration for extending time. 2.3.1.5 A litigant who seeks to appeal to the Supreme Court outside the prescribed time must first seek leave to file the appeal out of time (Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Salat v IEBC & 7 Others, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 16 of 2014). Any appeal filed out of time without the leave of the Supreme Court is a nullity and liable to be struck out; it cannot be salvaged by filing an application for extension of time and the deeming of the appeal as properly filed (Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Salat v IEBC & 7 Others, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 16 of 2014). BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION