substantial that provided grounds for invalidating the elections, in any event, regardless of whether the results were affected or not. The petitioners/respondents seek orders dismissing the appeals with costs. They also seek costs of their petitions in the proceedings in the High Court. Held: allowing the appeals, with the parties to meet their own costs in the appeal proceedings and in the High Court:1. The rule that a petitioner must raise an issue for trial in the pleadings is intended to permit a respondent and the court to know the issues that are to be tried and a respondent to prepare to meet those issues by counterpleading. It is also to allow the parties to present evidence and counterevidence on the issues to be tried. The trial judge erred in holding that late voting was properly pleaded because the issue was neither raised on the facts pleaded in the petitions nor by way of further particulars. Late voting was not therefore a live issue for the trial notwithstanding that the petitioners sought to bring it in subsequently in evidence that was presented for the trial. Donald Halstead v Henderson St. Clair Simon & Hubert Henry (1989) 1 O.E.C.S. L.R. 198 and dicta in Charan Lal Sahu v Giani Zail Singh, [1985] LRLC (Const.) 31; Ethlyn Smith & Others v Delores Christopher and Others, High Court Claims Nos. BVIHCV2003/0097 and 2002/0098 (23rd July 2003); Ferdinand Frampton v Pinard and Others, Claim No. DOMHCV2005/0149,150,151,152 and 154 (28th October 2005) and George Prime v Elvin Nimrod and Others, Claim No. GDVHCV2003/0551 (19th March 2004), considered. 2. Notwithstanding that the trial judge erred when she held that late voting was properly pleaded, the trial judge did not err, in any event, in finding, as a matter of fact, that there was no voting in the St. John Rural West and St. George constituencies by persons who joined the lines after 6:00pm on the day of the elections. The trial judge correctly found, as a matter of fact, that there was late voting in the St. George and St. John’s Rural West constituencies by persons who were in the lines by 6:00pm. There is nothing in her judgment that suggests that these decisions were arrived at in a manner that breached the principles in Benmax v Austin Motors Co. Ltd. [1955] A.C. 370; [1955] 1 All E.R. 326. Dictum in Golfview Development Limited v St. Kitts Development Corporation and Another, Saint Christopher and Nevis Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2004 (20th June 2007), at paragraphs 23 and 24, applied. 3. The trial judge correctly interpreted Rule 1(7) of the Election Rules to require polling stations to open for voting at 6:00am and close at 6:00pm. 5