only be done by means of Elections Petition in accordance with the law and rules in that regard.  [102] Learned Counsel for the Defendants also submitted that it was open to the Claimants prior to the holding of the by-election to contest the validity of the Speaker’s declaration of their seats as being vacant; that they could have made their application and request a speedy hearing of their application, that they, however tolerated the Speaker's declaration and participated in the process of preparing for the by- elections and it was only on the day before the by election that they approached the court. [103] Counsel Mr. Richards on behalf of the Claimants disagreed with the Defendants and contends that there are live controversies outstanding for the consideration and determination by this court. [104] Counsel contended that the root issue to be decided by the court as to whether the “Speaker acted lawfully in all respects when she decided to declare/announce and did declare/announce that the claimants’ seats were vacated” 35 is a matter of great public importance with great potential for injurious repetition unless clarified and resolved by the court and that the Claimants suffered damages as a result of the Speakers unlawful actions in that they lost their salaries and rights of enjoyment of their seats as members of the House of Assembly elected on the 18th December , 2009 and in the circumstances the case cannot be deemed moot when there are issues still outstanding.  [105] Counsel cited a number of cases in support of his contention that there was a live issue to be tried even though “the events spawned by it had expired.36  [106] In my judgment the answer to the question of whether the issue before the court given the factual situation of the Claimants having contested the by-election successfully and them having taken up their seats in Parliament has become moot is simply this, the facts as they exist to my mind have virtually removed the “bedrock” of the Claim, I find that indeed 35  Paragraph 20.4. of the claimants Submissions in Opposition (Augmented).   R (on the application of Bushell and others –v‐ New castle Upon Tyne Justices and others)[2006] UKHL 7,  Memphis Light, Gas and Water Div. V Craft 436 U.S. 1 1978, and Rodenhurst‐v‐ Chief Constable of  Grampian Police 1992 SLT 104; 1992 SC1; [1991] ScotSC SCIH 5, Southern Pacific Terminal Co –v‐ ICC 129  US 498 VOl 219, 1911 and Friend of Earth Inc et al –v‐ Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc 528 U.S.  167 (2000)  36   29