Applicants have not even shown any documentation showing the~communication of the Respondent of its decision based on their complaint. That the Applicants have presented false information to the court. 14. It is submi~ed that a manual counting of the votes would defeat the time lines set in Section 99 of the Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Act. The determination of results by the Respondent is based on Section 96 of the Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Act and the process set therein has to go uninterrupted until it is concluded. The Order for recounting obtained by the Applicants flies in the face of a clear statutory provision whose effect is to stop the Respondent from determining the results uninterrupted. That the order to recount is a final remedy yet the Court has powers to annul the elections pursuant to section 100 of the Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Act which proceeds on the understanding that the challenge should be made after declaration of the results 15. That Order 19 Rule 19 of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 provides that an application for an interim injunction in connection with election matters shall be made inter-parties. 16. The 1st and 2nd Interested Pa~y made their submission. Most of what was submitted by them has already been alluded to in the submissions made by the Respondent. 17. The Malawi Law Society which appeared as Interested Amicus Curiae was allowed to make oral submissions and the court took note of their contribution. Suffice to say that most of what they said had already been alluded to by other parties. 18. In response to the Respondents application, the Applicants filed a sworn statement made by Mr. Titus Mvalo. The Applicants say that in its briefing of23 rd 6