[50] Accordingly, I accept the arguments urged by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Martineau that the date of return is a question of fact for the Court to determine. In the absence of any evidence that is inconsistent with Ms. Simon’s evidence that the returns were made on the 13th March 2009, the Court is unable to hold otherwise and finds as a fact, that the returns were made on the 13th March 2009. Ms. Simon’s uncontroverted evidence is that she received the writ with the certificates endorsed thereon from the Returning Officers in each case. In this regard, the Court finds the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Martineau very attractive and persuasive. It is noteworthy that his arguments were adopted by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mendes. [51] Time for presentation In order to address the issue of the computation of the time when the petitions ought to be presented, the Court must of necessity, examine section 45(1) of the Representation of People Act which clearly provides that the petitions must be presented within 7 days. [52] In Ferdinand Frampton et al v Ian Pinard et al Claim No.0149-0154 of 2005, Rawlins J as he then was, at paragraph 14 of his erudite judgment quite helpfully enunciated the following: “The general principles state that time limits set in elections legislation are conditions precedent, mandatory and peremptory. They must be strictly followed. A petitioner must file and perfect the petition within the time limited in the legislation for the presentation of the petition. A petition must be served within the prescribed time.” I accept and apply those propositions of law. [53] The Court pauses to note that the wording of the Act says “within” and not “after” as urged by learned Counsel Mr. Marshall Jr. It is clear therefore that in order for the petitions to be held to have been properly presented they, of necessity, must have been filed within 7 days of the return that is within 7 days of the 13th March 2009. These provisions are mandatory and not procedural. 18