90 [15] However, and lest the Committee be accused of framing and issuing orders in favour of the Complaint, we note that the Complainant sought “Any other relief that the Honourable Committee shall deem fit to grant.” The Committee finds and holds that this is an appropriate prayer for the Committee to issue appropriate reliefs in the circumstances of the Complaint…. 3.6.2.7 If at the end of party nominations, only one candidate is validly nominated, they are declared the winner in a declaration of no contest (Regulations 21 & 53, Elections (General) Regulations, 2012). 3.6.2.8 A nominated candidate may withdraw his or her candidature before the election by filling out a notice in the form of Form 24A and delivering it to the Returning Officer not later than three days after nomination (Regulation 52, Elections (General) Regulations, 2012). 3.6.2.9 If there were only two nominated candidates and one withdraws, the remaining candidate is declared as duly elected (Regulation 53, Elections (General) Regulations, 2012). 3.6.2.10 Political parties are bound by the two-thirds gender rule in the process of nominating candidates and the IEBC has power to reject nomination lists that do not comply with two-thirds gender rule (Katiba Institute v IEBC, Constitutional Petition 19 of 2017). However, the two-thirds gender rule was suspended in respect of the 2022 elections in the case of Adrian Kamotho v IEBC, Judicial Review Miscelleneous No. E071 of 2022 and confirmed in Cliff Ombeta & Another v IEBC, Constitutional Petition E211 of 2022 (consolidated). 3.6.2.11 Section 31(2) of the Elections Act, 2011, empowers the IEBC, upon request from a political party, to conduct and supervise the nomination of candidates by the political party for presidential, parliamentary or county elections. Although such statutory provisions have the potential to create an awkward situation if the IEBC is subsequently asked to resolve disputes arising from such nominations, they are not unconstitutional. In Mugambi Imanyara & Another v Attorney General & 5 Others, Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 399 of 2016, the Court held as follows: The first petitioner fears that since the commission is also mandated to hear and determine disputes arising from the nominations, it cannot competently resolve disputes arising from a process it has presided. Unfortunately, Article 88 (4) reproduced above is clear and I find nothing unconstitutional… The above being the clear provisions of the Constitution leaves one possible and viable legal option, that is, an affected party may legally object to IEBC presiding over such a dispute and seek remedy in court or alternatively, IEBC may opt to recuse itself from resolving a dispute arising from a process it has presided over. 3.6.2.12 The involvement of the electoral management body in party nominations, especially those of the ruling party, is likely to create the perception of bias. In William Kabogo Gitau v George Thuo & 2 Others, Nairobi Election Petition No. 10 of 2008, the Court held as follows: rd The petitioner, in particular, complained that the 3 [R] respondent [i.e. the returning officer] was [also] the returning officer in the PNU nomination, which according to the [P]petitioner, he partially participated in but later withdrew on account of open bias st rd exhibited in favour of the 1 respondent. The 3 respondent denied participating in the PNU nomination. Having evaluated the evidence adduced in this petition in regard rd to that complaint, this court finds that the 3 respondent has indeed established that he did not participate as the returning officer in the PNU nominations. However, there BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION