They asserted that the error is reflected in the fact that the judge dismissed their submissions on this pleading point in a single sentence without providing any analysis or reason for her statement. They complained, further, that the judge did not identify the statements in the petition which in her view encompassed the pleading of late voting. They argued that she did not show where and how it was pleaded in the petitions. These latter assertions are correct. This court must therefore now examine the pleadings in order to determine whether the issue of late voting was properly pleaded, in the light of the applicable principles. Principles on pleading [31] The basic principles on pleadings in elections cases are uncontroversial. As in civil cases, generally, the purpose of pleadings is to identify the issue or issues that will arise at a trial. This is in order to avoid the opposing parties and the court being taken by surprise. [32] It was on this basis that Mr. Guthrie, QC, and Mr. Astaphan, SC, re-iterated relevant statements which these courts have consistently made in election cases. According to these statements of principle, cases in which an election is challenged must be heard expeditiously. The pleadings must be precise and disclose a cause or causes of action. Unless statute otherwise provides, an election petition, and any amendments thereto, must be perfected within the time limited for filing the petition. The rationale is that it would otherwise defeat the underlying virtue of the mandatory nature of elections legislation, which is intended to ensure that the validity of the election of a member of the legislature is dealt with expeditiously, in the public interest. Voters need to know who their lawfully elected representatives are as soon as possible after an election. These principles were stated, for example, in Ethlyn Smith and others v Delores Christopher and Others,12 in Ferdinand Frampton v Pinard and Others,13 and 12 13 High Court Claims Nos. BVIHCV2003/0097 and 2002/0098 (23rd July 2003), at paragraph 44 [Rawlins J). Claim No. DOMHCV2005/0149, 0150, 0152 and 0154 (28th October 2005), at paragraphs 14, 16 28, 29 18