3 1.3. Organisation 1.3.1. This Bench book is organised as follows: i. Chapter 1 sets out the background and context of EDR in the post-2010 constitutional framework. ii. Chapter 2 outlines the jurisdiction of various courts and tribunals in EDR, and the issue of timelines in so far as it relates to jurisdiction of various courts and tribunals. The rationale for the Chapter lies in the constitutional emphasis on timely resolution of electoral disputes (Article 87(1) of the Constitution), which often ties the jurisdiction of various courts and tribunals to the filing of electoral disputes within the prescribed timelines. iii. Chapter 3 outlines the prevailing jurisprudence on pre-election disputes, i.e., disputes that arise before the declaration of election results. iv. Chapter 4 outlines the prevailing case law and procedure for the handling of parliamentary and county election petitions. v. Chapter 5 focuses on the presidential election petition and highlights emerging jurisprudence. vi. Chapter 6 focuses on election petition appeals. vii. Chapter 7 outlines the prevailing case law on selected issues that frequently arise in EDR. viii. Chapter 8 sets out, appendices, timetables, checklists, as well as a series of selected statutory forms adopted by the judiciary for the EDR process. 1.4. The Judiciary Committee on Elections 1.4.1. Following the 2013 general election, the courts determined 188 parliamentary and county election petitions, and 3 presidential election petitions, within the timelines set out in the Constitution. The post-2013 decisions, which are set out in the law reports, constitute a rich body of EDR jurisprudence. The determination of the 2013 election petitions within the timelines set out in the Constitution is attributable to, inter alia, institutional preparedness spearheaded by the then Judiciary Working Committee on Elections Preparations (JWCEP), an ad hoc committee formed by the Chief Justice in 2012. 1.4.2. JWCEP’s mandate was limited to facilitating the Judiciary’s institutional preparedness for electoral disputes arising from the 2013 general election. Its successes and the need to avoid a relapse to the past legacy of delayed electoral justice pointed to the need for a permanent (as opposed to ad hoc) internal arrangements within the Judiciary to ensure institutional preparedness for future electoral disputes. In 2015, the Chief Justice established the Judiciary Committee on Elections (JCE) as successor to the JWCEP to continue the important work of ensuring that the Judiciary is prepared to meet the challenges of delivering a robust, fair and efficient electoral dispute resolution process in subsequent elections. The JCE steered the Judiciary in handing the 388 petitions that were filed following the 2017 elections. 1.4.3. In preparation for the 2022 general election, the JCE spearheaded legislative reform with a view to ameliorating the EDR process. These amendments had the effect of capping political party disputes appeals to the Court of Appeal, thereby bringing finality to the pre-election EDR process. In conjunction with the Kenya Judiciary Academy, JCE also facilitated the training of BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION