95 avenues to articulate the objectives of the Foundation. He ought to have clearly demarcated the boundaries between the actions of the Foundation and his individual actions as a candidate for the National Assembly seat for Lunga Lunga Constituency. nd By not so doing the 2 respondent blurred the vision of the electorates into having an impression that the acts of “generosity” engendered by the Foundation were actually nd acts of the 2 respondent. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the people of nd Lunga Lunga Constituency did exercise their free will in voting for the 2 respondent as their representative in the National Assembly. I therefore find that the results of the elections of Lunga Lunga Constituency did not meet the criteria under Article 81(e)(ii) of the Constitution that election system must comply with the principle of free and fair election which are free from improper influence. 3.8.1.6 The primary responsibility for resolving disputes relating to political campaigns lies with the IEBC (Rule 6(e), (f) and (g), Electoral Code of Conduct). This does not, however, preclude an election court from considering or annulling an election based on candidates’ conduct during the campaign period. However, the election court can only do so within the limited scope spelt out by the Supreme Court in the case of Sammy Ndung’u Waity v IEBC Sammy Ndung’u Waity v IEBC & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition 33 of 2018, where the Supreme Court established the following guiding principles: (i). All pre-election disputes, including those relating to or arising from nominations, should be brought for resolution to the IEBC or PPDT as the case may be in the first instance. (ii). Where a pre-election dispute has been conclusively resolved by the IEBC, PPDT, or the High Court sitting as a judicial review Court, or in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165 (3) and (6) of the Constitution, such dispute shall not be a ground in a petition to the election Court. (iii). Where the IEBC or PPDT has resolved a pre-election dispute, any aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the High Court sitting as a judicial review Court, or in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165 (3) and (6) of the Constitution. The High Court shall hear and determine the dispute before the elections and in accordance with the Constitutional timelines. (iv). Where a person knew or ought to have known of the facts forming the basis of a preelection dispute and chooses through any action or omission, not to present the same for resolution to the IEBC or PPDT, such dispute shall not be a ground in a petition to the election Court. (v). The action or inaction in (d) above shall not prevent a person from presenting the dispute for resolution to the High Court, sitting as a judicial review Court, or in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165 (3) and (6) of the Constitution, even after the determination of an election petition. (vi). In determining the validity of an election under Article 105 of the Constitution or Section 75 (1) of the Elections Act, an election court may look into a pre-election dispute if it determines that such dispute goes to the root of the election and that the petitioner was not aware or could not have been aware of the facts forming the basis of that dispute before the election. BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION