48 2.4.5. The Court of Appeal 2.4.5.0. The Court of Appeal is the final port of call for appeals from political party disputes. In Salesio Mutuma Thuranira & 4 Others v Attorney General & 2 Others; Registrar of Political Parties & 4 Ohers (Interested Parties), Petition E043, E057 & E109 of 2022, the High Court declined to declare Section 41(2) of the Political Parties (Amendment) Act, 2022 unconstitutional for truncating the right of appeal pertaining to matters arising from the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal to the Court of Appeal, and asserted: [311] The 1st and 2nd to 5th petitioners raised issue with the above section. They claim that the amendment to section 41 of the Act is unconstitutional as it denies disputants the right of appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not agree with them on this because the right of appeal to the Supreme Court is not automatic as can be seen from the provisions of article 163(4) of the Constitution …. [312]...We therefore find nothing unconstitutional about the above section since the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Kenya in hearing appeals is clearly set out in the Constitution and Supreme Court of Kenya Act. Appeals to the Supreme Court must be certified by the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court to be matters of general public importance, as provided for by the law. The same applies to matters related to disputes arising from party primaries. 2.4.5.1. The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in EDR is limited to matters of law only (s 85A of the Elections Act, 2011; Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 2B of 2016; Zacharia Okoth Obado v Edward Akong’o Oyugi & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 4 of 2014; and Timamy Issa Abdalla v Swaleh Salim Imu & 3 Others, Malindi Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2013). 2.4.5.2. The jurisdictional restriction of the Court of Appeal to matters of law only effectively limits the number, length and costs of election petitions and, consequently, facilitates the achievement of the constitutional objective of timely settlement of electoral disputes (Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 2B of 2014). 2.4.5.3. In Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others, the Supreme Court held that the phrase ‘matters of law only’, as used in section 85A of the Elections Act, 2011 refers to: (a) the interpretation, or construction of a provision of the Constitution, an Act of Parliament, subsidiary legislation, or any legal doctrine, in an election petition in the High Court; or (b) the application of a provision of the Constitution, an Act of Parliament, subsidiary legislation, or any legal doctrine, to a set of facts or evidence on record, by the trial judge in an election petition; or (c) the conclusions arrived at by the trial judge in an election petition where the appellant claims that such conclusions were based on “no evidence,” or that the conclusions were not supported by the established facts or evidence on record, or that the conclusions were “so perverse”, or so illegal, that no reasonable tribunal would arrive at the same. 2.4.5.4. The credibility of witness testimony and veracity of documents filed before an election court are matters of fact and, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal (s 85A, Elections Act, 2011; Frederick Otieno Outa v Jared Odoyo Okello & 4 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 6 of 2014; and Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 2B of 2014): BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION