are unable to make any determination on this issue for lack of material particulars. Furthermore, the 3rd respondent submitted that the question whether he was allegedly sponsoring the advertisement of the government’s achievement in the print and electronic media is pending at the High Court in the case of Apollo Mboya v. the Attorney-General and 3 Others114 and Jack Munialo & 12 Others v. the Attorney-General & the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission115. The petitioners did not contest this averment and in this regard as we have previously held, we cannot adjudicate on an issue which is still the subject of judicial determination at the High Court. Our advisory opinion in the matter of In Re The Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission116, succinctly speaks to this point: “The two cases seek the interpretation of the Constitution, with the object of determining the date of the next elections. Those petitions raise substantive issues that require a full hearing of the parties; and those matters are properly lodged, and the parties involved have filed their pleadings and made claims to be resolved by the High Court. To allow the application now before us, would constitute an interference with due process, and with the rights of parties to be heard before a Court duly vested with jurisdiction; allowing such an application would also Apollo Mboya v. the Attorney General and 3 Others Petition N0. 162 of 2017. Jack Munialo & 12 Others v. the Attorney General & the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission Petition No. 182 of 2017. 116 In Re The Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission, Reference No. 2 of 2011; [2011] eKLR. 114 115 Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            131  |  P a g e