12 Kapi J (as he then was) at page 107 stated: "In determining whether a person has the right and whether the Supreme Court has the power, this has to be determined in accordance with the law on the subject. In my opinion these matters cannot be determined under s 155 (4). The order that can be sought under such general provision are too numerous, it is difficult to see how this provision can cover all of them. In this case one still has to ask the question, has the applicant got the right to apply for an extension of time? Under the Supreme Court Act she has lost the right. Can it be argued that under s 155 (4) it would do justice to extend time because it was not her fault that she did not apply within forty days? In my view this cannot be so. "Justice" under this provision means justice according to law. This section is to be interpreted in the light of the doctrine of separation powers under s 99 of the Constitution. The law making powers of the National Parliament have to be kept separate the functions of the judiciary. If this Court ruled that it can give a right to apply to the applicant under s 155 (4) of the Constitution contrary to s 27 of the Supreme Court Act then this would have the peculiar affect in that this Court would have power to disregard or override clear provisions of the statutes. This, in effect, would amount to amendment or repeal of legislation by judicial power. Such an interpretation would put this Court above the legislature and it could make orders against the clear provisions of legislation if it thought the legislation was unfair or did not do justice." We conclude from this authority that the power to extend polling schedules is specifically granted to the Electoral Commission by the Organic Law (enacted in accordance with s 126 of the Constitution) and the general provision under s 155 (4) has no application. The Trial Judge relied on the Middle Ramu Case where the Chief Justice ordered extension of voting by one day. Counsel informed us that the Chief Justice did not publish any reasons for decision. We do not find this of any assistance in that we are not aware of the arguments put before the Chief Justice and the basis of the ruling. We find that the Trial Judge erred in law in extending the polling for the reasons we have set out in our judgment. We do not find it necessary to deal with ground (e). In the result we allow the appeal, quash the decision of the National Court and direct that the Electoral Commission should complete the election process under the Organic Law. We further order that the Respondent pays the Appellant’s costs of the Appeal. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers for the First, Second & Third Appellants : Nonggor & Associates Lawyers for the Fourth Appellant : Kwimb Lawyers Respondent in Person.