92 v IEBC Ex Parte Wavinya Ndeti, Nairobi High Court Judicial Review Application No. 301 of 2017, the High Court ruled: [140] In determining this application it is important to find out the nature of the exact dispute before the Committee since this Court being a judicial review court cannot turn itself into an appellate Court and re-evaluate the evidence presented before the Committee and arrive at its decision. This Court’s duty is simply restricted to examining the decision made by the Committee and the basis thereof in order to find out whether it was legal, procedural, reasonable or tainted with any other recognised impropriety that would render it unsustainable. That the parties herein were tempted to introduce fresh evidence that was not before the Committee was readily conceded by the 3rd interested party who however justified that course on what he termed as the tactics employed by the ex parte applicant… [146] Similarly, it is my view that it is not for this Court to investigate whether there existed other material on the basis of which an otherwise untenable decision could be sustained. 3.7.6 Legal challenges to party lists should ideally be raised before the publication of the nominated persons in the Kenya Gazette and their assumption of the relevant office (NGEC v IEBC, Nairobi Constitutional Petition No. 147 of 2013). Since the manner of preparation of the party list is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of a political party (Billy Elias Nyonje v National Alliance Party of Kenya & Another, Judicial Review 61 of 2013), disputes concerning the party list are resolved by the PPDT. Such legal challenges are only to be lodged at the PPDT where the persons named in the party list have not assumed the relevant office. 3.7.7 Where persons included in a party list have assumed the relevant office, their nomination can only be challenged by way of an election petition (NGEC v IEBC, Nairobi Constitutional Petition No. 147 of 2013); Rose Wairimu Kamau v IEBC & 3 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 169 of 2013; Moses Mwicigi & 14 Others v IEBC & 5 Others, Supreme Court Petition 1 of 2015; Vitalis Ojuang Odek v IEBC & 3 Others, Kisumu Election Petition 1 of 2017; Busia County Persons with Disability Network & 4 Others v IEBC & 2 Others, Kisumu Election Petition 5 of 2017; and Shadrack Mutua Kitili v IEBC & 17 Others, Kitui Election Petition 5 of 2017). 3.7.8 The High Court has the jurisdiction to hear appeals from the PPDT on matters of fact and law (s 41(2), Political Parties Act). 3.7.9 The Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to hear consequent appeals from the High Court on points of law only. The decision of the Court of Appeal is final and thus not appealable to the Supreme Court (s 41(2), Political Parties Act) 3.7.10 Notwithstanding the above, election courts have limited jurisdiction to hear nomination disputes, along the lines of the principles posed in the case of Sammy Ndung’u Waity v IEBC Sammy Ndung’u Waity v IEBC & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition 33 of 2018. An election court will only look into a ground challenging a candidate’s nomination if the petitioner was unaware of it and had no means of ascertaining the facts thereof. Such grounds must, however, go to the root of the election e.g., qualifications of a candidate. 3.7.11 In the preceding case, the Supreme Court, nonetheless, held that the High Court could still hear pre-election disputes in its supervisory/judicial review jurisdiction, even after the determination of election petitions. 3.7.12 Therefore, an election court should refuse to admit complaints relating to the nomination of BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION