182 Petition Appeal (Application No. 7 of 2018). The law on the issue appears to be settled now, with the Supreme Court asserting in Musa Cherutich Sirma v IEBC & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition 13 of 2018, that the fact that the Court of Appeal had exercised its discretion to strike out the appeal could not be faulted, as nothing had been laid before the apex Court to show that the exercise of discretion by the Court of Appeal was erroneous. While it was acknowledged that the error was occasioned by a late introduction of the Court of Appeal (Election Petition) Rules, 2017, it was observed that parties were now aware of the rules and there was a lower likelihood of conflicting jurisprudence on this issue in the future. 6.3.1.5 Although appeals against interlocutory decisions of the High Court in EDR that do not have the effect of striking out a petition must await the final judgment of that court (Nathif Jama Adam v Abdikhaim Osaman Mohamed & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 13 of 2014; Peter Gichuki King’ara v IEBC & Others, Nyeri Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2013; Benjamin Ogunyo Andama v Benjamin Andola Adayi & 2 Others, Civil Appeal (Application) No.11/13); Martha Wangari Karua v IEBC & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition 3 of 2019). 6.3.1.6 However, the above provision came into focus before the Supreme Court, in the case of Anuar Loitiptip v IEBC & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition 18 & 20 of 2018 (Consolidated) where the Court paras 22 and 23 considered the Rules and held: The combined effect of the above is that a person who seeks to appeal from a final determination of the High Court must file a Notice of Appeal within 7 days of the decision in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the Court of Appeal (Election Petition) Rules, 2017, and one who seeks to appeal against an interlocutory decision must file their intended notice within 14 days of the decision, in line with Rule 75 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010. However, we note that this position may present some impracticalities as where judgement is in ones favour, a party who had filed notice of appeal against an interlocutory order may be faced with unnecessary costs, a situation which may make parties shy away from filing Notices of Appeal pending the hearing and determination of the petition. We therefore direct that, for the purposes of election petitions only, where one is aggrieved by a decision in an interlocutory application in election petitions, such a party must file a notice of appeal against the interlocutory decision consecutively with the notice of appeal against the final judgement. Indeed, it is this notice that shall grant an appellate Court jurisdiction to determine issues before it. 6.3.1.7 In Martha Wangari Karua v IEBC & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition 3 of 2019, the Court acknowledged the challenges that interlocutory applications pose in realising access to justice, in light of the strict timelines, and provided the following guidance in para 55: (a) All Applications by a Respondent in an election petition, save in exceptional circumstances, should form part of the response to the Petition. Similarly, a Petitioner should as much as possible file any application arising from his Petition e.g. for scrutiny or recount at the same time as the Petition. (b) Unless for want of jurisdiction or in any other deserving circumstance, a trial Court should exercise restraint in striking out a Petition or a response, where such an action is likely to summarily dispose of the matter. BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION