59 3.2.3 The concept of territorial integrity, as used in Articles 5 and 6 of the Constitution, only applies to the Republic of Kenya in its capacity as a sovereign state and subject of international law. Accordingly, counties (and other devolved units into which Kenya is divided) cannot invoke the concept of territorial integrity in proceedings relating to their boundary disputes (Turkana County Government & 20 Others v Attorney General & 7 Others, Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 113 of 2015). 3.2.4 The boundaries of counties can only be altered by an independent commission set up by Parliament for that purpose, through a recommendation passed with the support of the prescribed majorities (Article 188 of the Constitution; Turkana County Government & 20 Others v Attorney General & 7 Others, Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 113 of 2015; and County Government of Isiolo & 10 Others v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & 3 Others, Nairobi Petition No. 511 of 2015). 3.2.5 Any person aggrieved by a decision of the IEBC on delimitation of boundaries may apply to the High Court for a review within 30 days of the publication of the decision in the Kenya Gazette (Article 89(9) and (10) of the Constitution). The application for review may take the format of judicial review, constitutional petition, notice of motion or any other application invoking Article 89(10) of the Constitution (Peter Odoyo Ogada & 9 Others v IEBC & 14 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 307 of 2012). A person seeking the High Court’s review must demonstrate an error, omission or default in the delimitation or alteration of the relevant boundaries (Peter Odoyo Ogada & 9 Others v IEBC & 14 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 307 of 2012). Further, the High Court cannot entertain an application for review filed after the expiry of the 30-day period (Rishad Hamid Ahmed & Another v IEBC, Mombasa High Court Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2016). 3.2.6 Although persons who are aggrieved by the delimitation or alteration of boundaries have a right to move to the High Court for review, the role of the High Court in the review is limited to ensuring that the bodies tasked with the delimitation and alteration comply with the Constitution and applicable laws (Turkana County Government & 20 Others v Attorney General & 7 Others, Nairobi High Court Constitutional Petition No. 113 of 2015). Courts have no jurisdiction, and are ill-equipped, to redraw boundaries or substitute their own view with that of the bodies constitutionally tasked with the delimitation and alteration of boundaries (Peter Odoyo Ogada & 9 Others v IEBC & 14 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 307 of 2012). In Shaban Mohamud Hassan & 2 Others v Shaban Mohamud Hassan & 3 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 281 of 2012, the Court explained the rationale for this rule as follows: It is not the court’s duty to substitute the decision of IEBC with its own views but to use the constitutional yardstick to evaluate the process and final decision of the IEBC and to declare and hold unconstitutional any decision or part thereof that does not comply with the Constitution…The delimitation process is necessarily complex and the commissions are required to consider a myriad of factors. Balancing these factors within the limits of the law and the Constitution is the duty cast on the IEBC and the court will respect the choices made if those choices accord with the Constitution and the law. 3.2.7 Courts can quash the delimitation of boundaries (by the order of certiorari) where the bodies constitutionally tasked with the delimitation or alteration have breached the Constitution or applicable laws (Shaban Mohamud Hassan & 2 Others v Shaban Mohamud Hassan & 3 Others, Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 281 of 2012). 3.2.8 Courts can also restrain (by the order of prohibition) the bodies constitutionally tasked with the delimitation or alteration of boundaries from undertaking the exercise in a manner that BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION