37 ruled that the PPDT had power to punish only for contempt on the face of the court; contrasted with David Odhiambo Ofuo v ODM & Others, Election Petition Appeal No 11 of 2017, where it was ruled that the PPDT can punish for wilful disobedience of judgment, decree, order or direction; and Dancun Ochieng Oluoch & Others v ODM, Miscellaneous Election Petition Application No 4 of 2017, for a finding that the PPDT can punish for disobedience of its orders). 2.4.1.3.8 All disputes referred to the PPDT are to be resolved expeditiously, and in any case within three months of the date when the same is lodged at the Tribunal (s 41(1), Political Parties Act). The Tribunal has the same power as the High Court to punish for contempt of its decisions (s 4 (3), Political Parties Act). Also, the proceedings in the PPDT should not have regard to procedural technicalities (s 41(4), Political Parties Act). 2.4.1.3.9 In 2017 jurisprudence, courts ruled that the jurisdiction of the PPDT is not terminated upon the acceptance of a candidate’s nomination by the IEBC. Jurisdiction of the PPDT remained and so did the appellate jurisdiction of the courts. Accordingly, in Eric Kyalo Mutua v Wiper Democratic Movement and Another, Civil Appeal No. 173 of 2017, the Court of Appeal asserted that section 13 of the Elections Act cannot oust the jurisdiction of either the courts or the PPDT: 24. Section 13 of the Elections Act on which the learned Judge relied provides for timelines within which a political party should nominate its candidates and the circumstances under which a political party may change the candidate nominated after the nomination of that person has been received by the IEBC. It does not, with respect, oust the jurisdiction of the PPDT or the court under Sections 40 and 41 respectively of the Political Parties Act to adjudicate over a dispute arising from nominations provided such jurisdiction is properly invoked. 25. The decisions of the High Court in Billy Elias Nyonje vs. National Alliance Party of Kenya and another (above) and John Pesa Dache vs. IEBC & another [2013] eKLR to which we were referred do not, in our view, support the proposition advanced that the jurisdiction of the PPDT and the High Court to hear and determine disputes arising from nominations is ousted by Section 13 of the Elections Act. To that extent, the learned Judge of the High Court erred in concluding that the PPDT did not have jurisdiction over the matter by dint of Section 13 of the Elections Act. 2.4.1.3.10 However, in Joseph Ibrahim Musyoki v Wiper Democratic Movement- Kenya & Another, Civil Appeal 203 of 2017, the Court of Appeal asserted that once a candidate’s nomination has been accepted, the dispute shifts from a party dispute to a nomination dispute, falling within the jurisdiction of the IEBC. This decision was adopted in 2022 in Ochola v Odhiambo & 2 Others; IEBC (Interested Party), Civil Appeal E389 of 2022 and Hussein Weytan Mohamed Abdirahman v Deka Ali Khala & 3 Others, Civil Appeal No E326 of 2022. The preponderance of the jurisprudence now appears to be that the PPDT jurisdiction is ousted upon acceptance of a candidate’s nomination papers by the IEBC. 2.4.1.3.11 Appeals from decisions of the PPDT may be made to the High Court on points of law and facts (s 41(2), Political Parties Act; and Faith Wairimu Gitau v Hon. Wanjiku Muhia & Another, Nairobi High Court Election Petition Appeal No. 25 of 2017). A further appeal, on points of law only, can be made to the Court of Appeal. 2.4.1.3.12 The decision of the Court of Appeal is final and so parties cannot further appeal to the Supreme Court (s 41(2), Political Parties Act). BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION