WALLIS AJ Electoral Court’s power to review decisions by the IEC. And all electoral disputes, apart from infractions of the Electoral Code, will necessarily have arisen because the IEC has, in the exercise of its powers, made a decision concerning an electoral matter. Until that has occurred one way or the other the dispute will not have crystallised sufficiently for it to be pursued before the Electoral Court. [45] The necessary conclusion is that the Electoral Court had jurisdiction to review decisions by the IEC. The remaining question is whether the case advanced on behalf of the applicants identified particular decisions by the IEC that it asked the Electoral Court to review. [46] The relief sought by the applicants before the Electoral Court narrowed considerably in the course of argument. Before this Court it was confined to seeking an order that the outcome of the by-elections should be set aside and fresh by-elections held. But this relief was consequential upon the Electoral Court concluding that there were decisions by the IEC that were susceptible of review in terms of section 20(1)(a) of the Commission Act. That requires an examination of the underlying complaints that the applicants said justified the grant of this relief. As this Court held in Gcaba,39 questions of jurisdiction are to be determined on the basis of the issues identified in the pleadings and in application proceedings the affidavits represent both the pleadings and the evidence.40 [47] The irregularities on which the applicants relied were threefold. They concerned the registration of voters on the voters’ rolls in wards in which they were not resident; the late issue to candidates of voters’ rolls without the addresses of voters; and the declaration by the IEC of the outcome of these by-elections. Each of those involved a decision by the IEC. In terms of section 8(1), read with section 8(3) 39 Gcaba above n 34 at para 75. 40 See also Theron and Another NNO v Loubser NO and Others [2013] ZASCA 195; 2014 (3) SA 323 (SCA) at para 26; Transnet Ltd v Rubenstein [2005] ZASCA 60; 2006 (1) SA 591 (SCA) at para 28 and; Hart v Pinetown Drive-in Cinema (Pty) Ltd 1972 (1) SA 464 (D) at 469C-E. 26