51 the Court in past decisions clearly demonstrate. [53] In this appeal, what Counsel for the petitioners is asking us to do is to assume jurisdiction by way of elimination. This Court is being called upon to hold that, because certification, was not sought by the intending appellant, then it must follow that the said appellant, is invoking the Court’s jurisdiction as of right, under Article 163 (4) (a) of the Constitution, even without demonstrating that, such right obtains in the first place. This we cannot do, as it would make a mockery of our past pronouncements on the matter. In Daniel Kimani Njihia v. Francis Mwangi Kimani & Another [2015] eKLR this Court was categorical that in preferring an appeal, “a litigant should invoke the correct constitutional or statutory provision; and an omission in this regard is not a mere procedural technicality, to be cured under Article 159 of the Constitution.” This statement of principle, in our view, still holds sway, and we see no reason to engineer a shift from it. 2.4.6.0.4. While there is no clear constitutional or statutory provision on the matter, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in EDR is limited to matters of law only (Chris Munga N Bichage v Richard Nyagaka Tong’i, IEBC & Robert K Ngeny, Supreme Court Petition No. 17 of 2014). The Supreme Court has also asserted that ‘matters of fact that touch on evidence without any constitutional underpinning are not open for this Court’s review on appeal’ (Mike Mbuvi Sonko v Clerk County Assembly of Nairobi, Supreme Court Petition 11(E008) of 2022). 2.4.6.0.5. An appeal must also, of necessity, be against the outcome of a case based on the reasons for the outcome. Without reasons for the decision being availed to the court, there is no basis upon which the petition can be jurisprudentially determined (Jimi Wanjigi v Wafula Chebukati & 2 Others, Supreme Court Application No 6 of 2022; Oscar Oluoch Ouma Abote v Loice Akoth Kawaka & 4 Others, Supreme Court Petition No 16 (E019) of 2022). 2.4.6.1 2.4.6.1.0 Cases Involving Interpretation or Application of the Constitution Not every decision of the Court of Appeal is appealable to the Supreme Court. For a party to Appeal to the Supreme Court they must show that the decision involved a matter of interpretation or application of the Constitution; or get Certification that their intended appeal raises matters of general public importance (Nasra Ibrahim Ibren v IEBC & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No 19 of 2018). 2.4.6.2.0 The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal turning solely on the issue of costs, as the issue of costs does not ordinarily entail the application or interpretation of the Constitution (Ledama Ole Kina v Samuel Kuntai Tunai & 9 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 16 of 2014). 2.4.6.3.0 Further, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal based on the interpretation or application of the Constitution where the relevant constitutional issue has not been the subject of litigation and opinion by the courts below (Bwana Mohamed Bwana v Silvano Buko Bonaya & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 15 of 2014; and Richard Nyagaka Tong’i v Chris Munga N. Bichage & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 17 of 2014). In Lawrence Nduttu & 6000 Others v Kenya Breweries Limited & Another, Supreme Court Petition No. 3 of 2012, the Supreme Court expressed the rule as follows: the appeal must originate from a Court of Appeal case where issues of contestation revolved around the interpretation or application of the Constitution. In other words, an appellant must be challenging the interpretation or application of the Constitution which the Court of Appeal used to dispose of the matter in that forum. Such a party must be faulting the Court of Appeal BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION