There is no evidence of an “endorsement on the Writ of Election” for the relevant constituency presented to the Court to determine the actual date that the return was made, if at all, accordingly in the absence of a return we are unable to calculate the expiration of the prescribed 7 days for filing the election petition”. [19] Further, he deposes in his affidavit as follows: “Without prejudice to the aforesaid, and on the unsubstantiated assumption that the return was made on the 13th March 2009, my election petition was filed with the prescribed time on the basis of the following. Firstly, the election was held on Thursday the 12th day of March 2009. The return being assumed on Friday the 13th day of March 2009. Between the 13th March and the day of filing the petition which was the 23rd March 2009 there was 10 calendar das, inclusive of both days. During that period, there was one public holiday being the 13th March 2009. There was also 2 Saturdays being the 14th and the 21st March 2009 and 2 Sundays, being the 15th and the 22nd March 2009. I am advised by Counsel and verily believe that in computating time as set out in section 45 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, regard must be had to section 63 of the Act which governs the jurisdiction and procedure to be adopted in election petitions.” [20] Mr. Hugh Marshall Jr.’s submissions On the issue of whether the petitions should be struck, learned Counsel Mr. Marshall Jr. said that there are two issues that arise. Firstly, whether there has been a return within the prescribed manner at all. That is, whether or not the Election Writ has been endorsed. The second issue is how do you compute the seven (7) days specified in the legislation? [21] Mr. Marshall Jr. learned Counsel referred the Court to the case of Ethlyn Smith BVIHCV2003/0097 and said that it is authority for the proposition that provisions within the 9