43 hear and determine the question as to the validity of election of Members of County Assembly is vested with the Resident Magistrate’s Court designated by the Chief Justice. 2.4.3.2. Such a petition is to be heard and determined within six months (s 75(2), Elections Act, 2011). Further, the Chief Justice may, by notification in the Kenya Gazette, appoint special magistrates to hear and determine matters relating to election offences. 2.4.3.3. A Magistrate’s Court constituted by a Principal Magistrate, has jurisdiction to hear appeals, on matters of fact and law, from decisions of the IEBC Registration Officer regarding a claim presented by a person for their name to be included in the register (s 12(2) of the Elections Act, 2011). Such appeals must be lodged within fourteen days after the Registration Officer’s determination of the claim (Regulation 21 of the Election (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012). The appellant must deliver a written request to the court, signed and briefly stating the grounds of appeal (Regulation 22(1) and (2) of the Election (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012). 2.4.3.4. Once the Magistrate’s Court determines the Appeal, parties have another right of Appeal to the High Court on points of law only (s 12(2), Elections Act, 2011). Regulation 23 of the Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012 requires the Registration Officer to deliver the following documents to the Principal Magistrate’s Court for every request filed: (a) a copy of the Claim and new application under regulation 18; (b) a copy of the Notice of Determination of the Claim under regulation 20(3); and (c) written reasons for the determination. 2.4.3.5. The Chief Justice is also empowered by the Election Offences Act to appoint, by notification in the Kenya Gazette, special magistrates to handle offences under the Act (s 23(1), Election Offences Act, 2016). For the 2022 elections, the Chief Justice has appointed 119 special magistrates to handle election offences. 2.4.3.6. Prosecution of election offences must be commenced within 2 years of the commission of the act in question and, where the offence is the result of a finding by an election court under section 87 of the Elections Act, time starts to run on the date of the final judgment (s 22, Election Offences Act, 2016). 2.4.3.7. Of concern to magistrates tasked with hearing election offence cases include the question of whether there is sufficient admissible evidence presented by the prosecution to warrant a conviction. This would require an assessment of the level of compliance with sections 78A and 106B of the Evidence Act. 2.4.3.8. Where hate speech is alleged, there is need for proof that the accused spoke publicly, that there were abusive words spoken against the complainant, and that the intention of the accused person was to provoke a breach of the peace. There is also a need for the prosecution to supply evidence of witnesses who would testify to the effect that the words have on them or to indicate that the words would likely cause them to resort to violence. If the utterances are made at an unknown place, without demonstration that they were addressed to members of the public, the element of stirring ethnic hatred among the public is not demonstrated. It is also necessary, where reliance is placed on social media reports, to avail reports of verification of the social media accounts relied on. In Republic v Oscar Sudi, Criminal Case No 58 of 2020, the Court held: In a matter where it is alleged that the act was intended to provoke a breach of BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION