Legal Team. Mr Kaonga said thilt the Respondent has not made any decision on . . .' the complaints filed. It is concluded by Mr I~aonga . ~ that the 8 days for the Respondent to resolve the complaints has not expired, as such the Applicants' action and orders c~n not be sustained by the Court and therefore aught to be vacated with costs. 6. The Respondent filed two skeleton arguments in support of their application. In a nutshell, the issues raised in these skeletal arguments are three namely: i) Whether leave should have been granted ii) Whether the attendant injunction should have been granted iii) Whether the injunction should be discharged 7. It has been argued at length by the Respondent that Order 19, rule 20 of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules Judicial Review is meant to cover the review of law, an action or a decision of the Government or a Public Officer for conformity with the Constitution. It follows therefore that there must be an action or indeed a decision made before one can apply for Judicial Review. 8. The Respondent argued that th; Applicants on 23 rd of May 2019 raised various allegations of vote rigging/tampering in diverse polling stations. The Respondent received the complaints and commenced investigations as well as taking corrective steps. That the Electoral Commission is yet to make a decision on the complaints raised by the applicants. As such there is no matter fit for Judicial Review. The Respondent therefore submits that the Applicants should have waited for a decision by the Respondent and then approach the High Court by way of appeal as provided for in Section 76 (3) of the Constitution. 9. The Responden~s Submitted that the Applicants wrongly commenced this matter since the law in Section 76 (3) of the Constitution does provide that any person 4