52 on the basis of such interpretation. Where the case to be appealed from had nothing or little to do with the interpretation of the Constitution, it cannot support a further appeal to the Supreme Court under the provisions of Article 163 (4) (a). 2.4.6.4.0 Although the above dictum points to a strict approach to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the Court has, in practice, often adopted a liberal approach in EDR cases. In Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others, Supreme Court Application No. 5 of 2014, it held as follows: where specific constitutional provisions cannot be identified as having formed the gist of the cause at the Court of Appeal, the very least an appellant should demonstrate is that the Court’s reasoning, and the conclusions which led to the determination of the issue, put in context, can properly be said to have taken a trajectory of constitutional interpretation or st application… While we agree [with counsel for the 1 Respondent] regarding his contention that Section 87 of the Elections Act cannot be equated to a constitutional provision, we must hasten to add that the Elections Act, and the Regulations thereunder, are normative derivatives of the principles embodied in Articles 81 and 86 of the Constitution, and that in interpreting them, a Court of law cannot disengage from the Constitution… 2.4.6.5.0 The Supreme Court has ruled that its role of interpretation involves ‘revealing or clarifying the legal content or meaning of a constitutional provision, for purposes of resolving the dispute at hand’, while application concerns ‘creatively interpreting the Constitution to eliminate ambiguities, vagueness and contradictions, in furtherance of good governance’ (Evans Odhiambo Kidero & 4 Others v Ferdinand Ndungu Waititu & 4 Others, Supreme Court Petitions 18 & 20 of 2014). The Supreme Court in Zebedeo John Opore v IEBC & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition 32 of 2018, while finding that its jurisdiction had not been properly engaged, distilled the categories of electoral appeals that may be lodged at the apex Court as follows: (a) In election petitions before this court, a party may not invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 165 (4) (a), where the trial Court had found that alleged irregularities and malpractices were not proved, as a basis then does not lie for an application or interpretation of the Constitution; (b) The Articles of the Constitution cited by a party as requiring interpretation or application by this Court, must have required interpretation or application at the trial Court, and must have been a subject of appeal at the Court of Appeal; in other words, the Article in question must have remained a central theme of constitutional controversy, in the life of the cause. (c) A party seeking this Court’s intervention has to indicate how the Court of Appeal misinterpreted or misapplied the constitutional provision in question. Thus, the said constitutional provision must have been a subject of determination at the trial Court. (d) As a logical consequence of the foregoing, a party must indicate to this Court in specific terms, the issue requiring the interpretation or application of the Constitution, and must signal the perceived difficulty or impropriety with the Appellate Court’s decision. 2.4.6.6.0 A question of conduct of an election under Articles 81 and 86 of the Constitution falls within the jurisdictional ambit of Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution (Alfred Nganga Mutua & 2 Others v Wavinya Ndeti & Another, Supreme Court Petition 11 & 14 of 2018; and Clement Kungu BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION