WALLIS AJ the electoral timetable that it had promulgated. Once again no reason was proffered for this failure. [95] It follows that these elections were not free and fair. Relief [96] It is plain that there must be a declaratory order. That follows from the Court’s obligation to declare law and conduct that is inconsistent with the Constitution invalid to the extent of its inconsistency. 71 The more difficult question is whether, as the applicants asked, in granting a just and equitable remedy,72 we should set aside the outcome of the by-elections and direct the IEC to conduct fresh by-elections in the affected wards. [97] This Court’s jurisprudence directs that we should grant a successful litigant effective relief.73 It also holds that when dealing with public bodies a declaratory order often suffices to provide effective relief without the need to go further.74 But the overriding obligation is to grant just and equitable relief and that requires the Court to consider carefully all the possible ramifications of its order. [98] It is tempting to conclude that an election that was not free and fair must inevitably be set aside. But that may be an unduly facile conclusion. Overturning an election is a serious business.75 Lucas CJ in California said: 71 Section 172(1)(a) of the Constitution. 72 Section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution. 73 Fose v Minister of Safety and Security [1997] ZACC 6; 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC); 1997 (7) BCLR 851 (CC) at para 97. 74 Rail Commuters Action Group v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail [2004] ZACC 20; 2005 (2) SA 359 (CC); 2005 (4) BCLR 301 (CC) at para 108. 75 Per Rothstein and Maldaver JJ in Opitz v Wrzesnewskyj 2012 SCC 55; [2013] 3 SCR 76 at para 87 (Opitz). See to similar effect Cusimano v. Toronto (City) 2011 ONSC 7271 at para 63; Gooch v Hendrix 851 P 2d 1321 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1993) (Gooch) at 1327-8; McEwing v. Canada (Attorney General) [2013] 4 FCR 63; 2013 FC 525 at para 56. 49