WALLIS AJ is not to be stultified by a resort to undue literalism and too careful a parsing of statutory language.34 [41] This construction is strengthened by considering what is encompassed by a power of review in this context. In ordinary language, it is a power to reconsider and, if necessary, replace the decision of the IEC. It is not a narrow appeal power, bound to a record, where the court decides merely whether on that record the decision was right or wrong. Nor is it the even narrower review power, where the process through which the decision was taken is scrutinised, but the merits of the decision are not considered. Instead it is the widest possible type of review where the decision in question is subjected to reconsideration, if necessary on new or additional facts, and the body exercising review power is free to substitute its own decision for the decision under review.35 It is notable that section 56 of the Electoral Act contemplates that any serious irregularity concerning any aspect of an election may be brought before the Electoral Court, whether arising under section 55 of the Electoral Act, which provides for an appeal to the Electoral Court, or otherwise. On the face of it, the jurisdiction of the Electoral Court to deal with such an irregularity must arise under section 20(1)(a) of the Commission Act. It could not effectively exercise that jurisdiction unless the review power under that section is as described above. [42] The jurisdiction to review any decision of the IEC relating to an electoral matter affords the Electoral Court a power of judicial oversight over the activities of the IEC. The Electoral Court can examine any decision by the IEC and substitute it with its own. The range of electoral matters may be great. Certainly all the issues arising in the present case relate to electoral matters. They concern who may vote and whether all those who voted were entitled to do so. They also concern the ability of 34 See Chirwa v Transnet Ltd [2007] ZACC 23; 2008 (4) SA 367 (CC); 2008 (3) BCLR 251 (CC) at paras 47-54 and 101-113 and Gcaba v Minister of Safety and Security [2009] ZACC 26; 2010 (1) SA 238 (CC); 2010 (1) BCLR 35 (CC) (Gcaba) at para 57. 35 Tikly v Johannes NO 1963 (2) SA 588 (T) at 590G-591A and Road Accident Fund v Duma & Three Similar Cases [2012] ZASCA 169; 2013 (6) SA 9 (SCA) at para 26. Although the statutes in those cases dealt with the appellate powers of the tribunal, the delineation of the various manifestations of that power is equally applicable to an analysis of the nature of a general power of review. 24