49 Flowing from these guiding principles, it follows that a petition (sic) which requires the appellate Court [i.e. the Court of Appeal] to re-examine the probative value of the evidence tendered at the trial Court, or invites the Court to calibrate any such evidence, especially calling into question the credibility of witnesses, ought not to be admitted. 2.4.5.5. The statutory restriction of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in EDR to ‘matters of law only’ does not preclude the Court of Appeal from reversing a trial court’s conclusions of fact and appraisal of witness accounts, where such conclusions or appraisal of witness accounts are absurd, irrational or so perverse that no reasonable tribunal would arrive at them (Gatirau Peter Munya v Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 2B of 2014; and Frederick Otieno Outa v Jared Odoyo Okello & 4 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 6 of 2014). 2.4.5.6. The Court of Appeal has a ‘deferred and sequential’ jurisdiction to hear appeals against interlocutory decisions of an election court. This rule is to be found in, inter alia, Nathif Jama Adam v Abdikhaim Osaman Mohamed & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 13 of 2014, Peter Gichuki King’ara v IEBC & Others, Nyeri Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2013; and Benjamin Ogunyo Andama v Benjamin Andola Adayi & 2 Others, Civil Appeal (Application) No. 24 of 2013). The concept of ‘deferred and sequential’ jurisdiction means that, in the first place, that the Court of Appeal will not entertain appeals on interlocutory matters during the pendency of the substantive dispute before an election court. The practical consequence of this rule is that a litigant who seeks to appeal against an interlocutory decision of an election court must await the final hearing and determination of the substantive dispute before the election court (Cornel Rasanga Amoth v William Oduol & 2 Others, Kisumu Civil Appeal Application No. 26 of 2013). Editorial Note: While as a general rule only appeals relating to an interlocutory decision that has led to the petition being struck out for want of jurisdiction will be heard by the Court of Appeal, interlocutory decisions that are dispositive of the petition are appealable immediately. Moreover, in exceptional circumstances, an appellate Court may dispose of an appeal arising from an interlocutory application filed and determined by the trial Court while the substantive matter is still ongoing at the trial Court, so long as the 6-month timeline is adhered to (Martha Wangari Karua v IEBC & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 3 of 2019). 2.4.5.7. Secondly, the concept of deferred and sequential jurisdiction means that the Court of Appeal can fault or reverse election courts’ interlocutory decisions, even where such decisions are not formally appealed from (Nathif Jama Adam v Abdikhaim Osaman Mohamed & 3 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 13 of 2014). 2.4.5.8. The rationale for the ‘deferred and sequential’ jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal on interlocutory decisions lies in the constitutional objective of timely resolution of electoral disputes. In Cornel Rasanga Amoth v William Oduol & 2 Others, Kisumu Civil Appeal Application No. 26 of 2013, the Court of Appeal stated as follows: the exclusion of this Court from entertaining appeals from orders made on interlocutory applications was not by accident. The exclusion was deliberate given the History of electoral dispute resolution mechanisms in this country…When the people of Kenya promulgated the Constitution of Kenya 2010, they were unhappy with the period electoral disputes took to be resolved. In some cases, the disputes were not resolved for the entire life of Parliament. In their wisdom, therefore the people of Kenya prescribed the period within which those disputes should be resolved, hence the parameters set out in Article 105 (2) and BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION