Smith and Veril Brown (1984) 21 J.L.R. 388 should, hereafter, be read against a background of section 37 (e). Here it must be observed that Webster followed the decision in Woohard v Sarsons L.R. 10 C.P.733; (1874-80) A.E.R. Rep.262, but took no account of Morgan's case which, from all appearances, was not cited before the learned Chief Justice. In argument before this court counsel for the applicant relied heavily on the MalayBrunei case of Re Tangjong htteri Johore State Election CI Petition; Abdul Ra& Bin Ahmad v Datuk MD Yunos Bin Sulaiman & Anor 1988 MLJ Lelxis 545; 1988 -2 MLJ 111 decided January 24, 1988. The headnote to that case reads as follows :"At an election held in a certain constituency, the first respondent emerged as the winning candidate. The petioner (sic) who stood as a candidate in that constituency polled less votes. He took out the present petition claiming that the election was not properly conducted and that the election should be declared void. Held: (I) the numerous errors, mistakes or irregularities and the unforseen and improper movement of the ballot boxes, when considered collectively, constitute sufficient proof to the satisfaction of this court that the election had not been conducted substantially in accordance with the election laws; (2) the election was void and the fist respondent ought not to have been elected; (3) a certificate under s 36 of the Election Offences Act 1954 would be issued." r-\ '\ In the course of his judgment Wau Yahya J. said this :"To my mind, an election does not merely symbolize the citizens' right to free fianchize but entails public participation in selecting the government of their choice through a process which not only guarantees absolute fairness, secrecy, impartiality and regularity but which also