printing machines and was not deliberate. In my view, notwithstanding that the first mentioned conclusion by the judge may be understandable, it is a conclusion that should only have been drawn if that question was made a central issue in the petitions and was canvassed as such. It was not. [23] Mr. Martineau further submitted that the trial judge should not have found that electoral officials quite unwisely decided to use the ‘photo lists’ instead of the Register for Elections on election day. Mr. Martineau insisted that the uncontroverted evidence was that it was always the intention of the electoral office to use both the ‘photo list’ and the Register together as was done in previous elections. It is perhaps understandable, in my view that electoral officials intended, by using these lists, to buttress the integrity of the electoral process and to provide additional security for it. Notwithstanding that this intention was admirable, it remains that the ‘photo lists’ were not prescribed for use by law. It may be that if they were so prescribed, their use would have benefited from a certain, rationalized and planned process, which may have obviated the judge’s comment. It is my view that the comment was not central to the resolution of the critical issues that arise on this appeal. [24] In summary, then, the central task for this court is to adjudicate upon the appellants’ prayers for orders setting aside the judge’s decisions declaring their election invalid, and to determine the petitioners/respondents prayers for orders dismissing the appeals with costs. It was not clear whether the petitioners/respondents also seek costs in their petitions in the proceedings in the High Court. The issues [25] The issues that arise for consideration on the appeals and counter-notices revolve primarily around the late opening of the polls and late voting. I shall first consider whether late voting was properly pleaded. Logical development dictates that I 15