45 2013; and Lemanken Aramat v Harun Meitamei Lempaka & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 5 of 2014). This special jurisdiction is not conterminous, and should not be confused with the High Court’s unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters, or the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over inferior bodies and tribunals (Lemanken Aramat v Harun Meitamei Lempaka & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 5 of 2014). 2.4.4.1. In Orange Democratic Movement v Yusuf Ali Mohamed & 5 Others, Civil Appeal 37 of 2018, the Court of Appeal stated: (44) …. a party cannot through its pleadings confer jurisdiction to a court when none exists. In this context, a party cannot through draftsmanship and legal craftsmanship couch and convert an election petition into a constitutional petition and confer jurisdiction upon the High Court. Jurisdiction is conferred by law not through pleading and legal draftsmanship. It is both the substance of the claim and relief sought that determines the jurisdictional competence of a court... 2.4.4.2. According to the Supreme Court, to allow an electoral dispute to be transmuted into a petition for the vindication of fundamental rights under Article 165(3) of the Constitution, or through judicial review proceedings, carries the risk of opening up a parallel electoral dispute resolution regime (Moses Mwicigi & 14 Others v IEBC& 5 Others, Supreme Court Petition 1 of 2015; and Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Granton Graham Samboja & Another; Kenyatta University & Another (Interested Parties), Constitutional Petition 382 of 2017). Courts of equal status to the High Court may also not exercise jurisdiction over matters reserved for the High Court (Karisa Chengo & 2 Others v Republic, Criminal Appeal Nos 44, 45 & 76 of 2014). 2.4.4.3. The rule that the High Court’s jurisdiction in EDR is a special one has many important consequences. First, an electoral dispute cannot be handled by or remitted to a judge other than the one designated and gazetted to hear and determine it (Rule 6(3), Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Petitions Rules, 2017; Lemanken Aramat v Harun Meitamei Lempaka & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 5 of 2014; John Ndirangu v Commission on Administrative Justice & Another, Civil Appeal 257 of 2014; Orange Democratic Movement v Yussuf Ali Mohammed & 5 Others, Civil Appeal 37 of 2018; Tuneiya Hussein Dado v IEBC & 2 Others, Garsen High Court Election Petition No. 2 of 2017; Lenny Maxwell Kivuti v IEBC & 3 Others, Embu High Court Election Petition No. 1 of 2017; Kaltuma Abdulahim Maalim v The Speaker County Assembly of Wajir & Others, Garissa Constitutional Petition No. 14 of 2017). Even where the petition is said to raise serious constitutional issues, it is handled by one judge, as the Rules are clear that the election court is properly constituted when it is comprised of one judge (Hon. Martha Wangari Karua & Another v IEBC & 3 Others, Kerugoya HCEP No. 2 of 2017). 2.4.4.4. The transfer of an election petition may be sanctioned by the Chief Justice, on the advice of the court gazetted to hear the petition (John Munyes Kiyonga v Josephat Koli Nanok & 2 Others, Lodwar High Court Election Petition No. 1 of 2017). Sufficient material must be placed before the Court on the basis of which the gazetted court can advise the Chief Justice on the transfer (Paul Ekuwon Nabuin v Christopher Doye Nakuleo & 2 Others, Lodwar High Court Election Petition No. 2 of 2017; George M. O. Ayacko v IEBC & 3 Others, Kisii High Court Election Petition No. 13 of 2017). However, where imperative security concerns demand it, a petition can be heard in a different court station by the gazetted judicial officer if agreed on at pre-trial (Mohamed Dado Hatu v Dhadho Gaddae Godhana & 3 Others, Garsen Election Petition 1 of 2017). Nevertheless, the court must be careful not to sanction transfers at the request of parties who cite a threat of violence as this may play into the hands of those who want to cause violence, thus creating a BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION