WALLIS AJ [39] The point that strikes one immediately about section 20(1) is that the jurisdiction it confers on the Electoral Court is extremely broad. It is a power to review “any decision” by the IEC. Many years ago Innes CJ pointed out that“‘[a]ny’ is, upon the face of it, a word of wide and unqualified generality. It may be restricted by the subject-matter or the context, but prima facie it is unlimited.” 32 The use of the word “any” to describe the decisions of the IEC that are subject to the review powers of the Electoral Court must be taken to mean each and every decision, unless there is something in the context that justifies a more restrictive meaning. But the only restriction is that the decisions that are subject to this judicial oversight are decisions “relating to an electoral matter”. In other words, decisions by the IEC over where to locate its offices, or how to source equipment, or who should be employed, are not included. But, if the decision relates to an electoral matter, then it is included and “any” decision in that regard is subject to review by the Electoral Court. [40] Is there anything in the context that would warrant a more restrictive interpretation of the section and hence of the Electoral Court’s jurisdiction? I think not. The clear purpose was to establish a court that would be able to deal with all electoral matters. It was constituted with the same status as the High Court and with a judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal as its chairperson. It is to resolve electoral disputes as a matter of urgency.33 There is not the slightest indication that the intention was to limit the range of disputes that would fall within the ambit of the Electoral Court’s jurisdiction, so that some electoral issues would fall within its jurisdiction and others not. Instead, the breadth of language used suggests that the statutory purpose was to create a specialist court that would deal with all electoral matters. And our jurisprudence holds that when a specialist court is created the apparent purpose of creating a single forum for resolving disputes of a particular type 32 R v Hugo 1926 AD 268 at 271 and Arprint Ltd v Gerber Goldschmidt Group SA (Pty) Ltd 1983 (1) SA 254 (A) at 261B-D. 33 Section 20(2) of the Commission Act. 23