80 Court by the NEC and the parties to the appeal proceedings filed their respective briefs. On Friday, December 1, 2017, the Supreme Court, upon assignment duly made and served, met to commence hearing on the appeal. Upon the call of the appeal case for hearing, counsel for Appellee NEC informed the Court that the appellee had filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of first appellants Charles Walker Brumskine and Harrison Karnwea on ground that the said appellants had failed to comply with the provisions of the elections appeal law. The first appellants acknowledged that they had received copy of the motion filed by the appellee and that they had filed returns thereto. Accordingly, the Court, with the agreement of the parties, and as is the procedure followed by the Court in such matters, given the urgency attached to the disposition thereof, ordered that the motion and the main appeal action be consolidated, heard and disposed of in a single Opinion and judgment. Hence, and because the Court will address the motion to dismiss the appeal, we herein quote the said motion, as follows, to wit: “AND NOW COMES Movant/Defendant/Appellee in the above entitled proceedings, and most respectfully moves your Honours and this Honourable Court to dismiss 1st complainants/respondents/ appellants' appeal, and for legal and factual reasons, showeth the following, to wit: 1. Movant says and submits that on the 23rd day of October, 2017, 1st complainants/respondents/appellants filed a complaint with the National Elections Commission, alleging violation of the Constitution and Elections Law, fraudulent acts and gross irregularities during the October 10, 2017 Elections. Movant respectfully requests Court to take judicial notice of the records in these proceedings, especially the fact that the 1st Complainants are Charles Walker Brumskine and Harrison S. Karnwea, Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates at the October 10, 2017 Elections, all Representative Candidates of Liberty Party. 2. Movant says and submits that 1st complainants' complaint was filed by Counsellors James G. Innis, Jr. and Powo C. Hilton, who were later joined by Counsellors Kuku Dorbor and N. Oswald Tweh. The Court is respectfully requested to take judicial notice of the records in these proceedings. 3. Movant says and submits that our Supreme Court has held "it is presumed, in the absence of challenge, that a lawyer will not make representations as to his authority to act for a client unless such authority actually exists". Saleeby Brothers, Inc. vs. Barclay Export Finance Company, Ltd., 20 LLR 520 (1971). 4. Further to count three (3) herein above, movant says in the absence of any challenge to the contrary, it is recognized that the lawyers named