~"'+, ~~ who has petitioned or complained to the Electoral Commission shall have the right ;,. to appeal to the High Court against determinations made. 10. That by engaging the High Court, the Applicants have two Electoral Tribunals seized with the same matter and that this is an abuse of the court processes. 11. It is therefore submitted that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to even entertain the case herein which came before it in the manner it did. That the proceedings were a nullity. In support of the above issues, the Respondent referred this Court to several cases such as: The State vs Attorney General Ex-Parte Ian Kanyuka miscellaneous Civil Cause Number 116 of 2012, Christopher -\ Mtikila vs Attorney General {1995}, T.L.R. 31, Malawi Electoral Conlnlission vs Nthala and Sawerengera Miscellaneous Civil Cause Numbers 52 and 53 of 2002 respectively, Profes,s'or Chisi vs Electoral Commission Electoral Case Number 1 of 2014, Jessie Kabwira vs Electoral Commision electoral Case Number 2 of 2014 and Hetherwick Mbale vs Hassan Maganga MSCA Misc Civil Appeal Number 21 of 2013. 12. The Respondent further submitted that the matter herein was commenced through a wrong order. That Ele!tion matters are a particular proceeding within the meaning of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017. That the proceedings in Electoral Matters are governed by Order 19 Part II which are Rules 13 to 19. That rule 13 makes it mandatory that an election matter must be commenced in a manner specified by the Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Act or The Local Government Elections Act and that in any event by application. That it is not within Part III of Order 19 because different considerations apply. 13. The Respondents have argued that this matter was brought in bad faith. The Applicants did not disclose to the court that the Electoral Commission was investigating the complaints and that a decision is yet to be made. That the 5