[54] In Ethlyn Smith et al v Delores Christopher et al ibid Rawlins J, as he then was, in his very erudite judgment speaking about the provisions of the legislation which stipulate the times within which a petition (procedural) should be presented had this to say: “In his submissions, learned Counsel, Mr. Joseph Archibald, QC, traced the history of the jurisprudence in this area of the law to 1879 and the locus classicus, Williams v The Mayor of Tenby and Others [1879] C.P.D. 135. The legal principles stated in the head note is that it is a condition precedent to the trial of a municipal election petition, that within 5 days after its presentation, the petitioner should serve a notice of the presentation in the manner prescribed by statute, as well as notice of the nature of the proposed security and a copy of the petition, as required by the Municipal Election Act 1872 and related Rules. This case is interesting because our 1994 Act reproduces some of the requirements contained in the 1872 Act. Both Acts provide, for example, that a petition shall be presented within 21 days of the election, unless there is complaint of corrupt practices. Both Acts also provide for the wording of the provisions in the 1872 Act made them mandatory, and that the requirements for the presentation of petitions are conditions precedent. This is a strict interpretation of what may appear on the face to be procedural provisions. However, the courts have consistently said that they are substantive provisions. In Williams v Tenby ibid, Grove J. rationalized this approach at page 137. He said that the meaning of the enactment is that a petition should not be kept long hanging over the heads of persons elected, and therefore must be presented within 21 days. During that time, a petitioner should read the Act and ascertain what he or she has to do. He said, further, that the courts find great inconvenience in ordinary cases where there is power to extend the time, because the courts are then occupied with applications for extension of time. The rationale is that, in election petition cases, it is most important that the time of proceedings should be limited, and that persons should know when they are safe.” 19