Judgment No. SC 69/15 7 Civil Appeal No. SC 9/14 I am satisfied, accordingly, that the dispute in casu was not upgraded to one that is envisaged under s 167(2) of the Constitution by the mere fact that the unsealing of boxes and packets in question would have exposed election residue relating to the election of the President. On that basis, I find that the court a quo had and should have properly exercised, jurisdiction to hear the matter on the merits. That is, absent any procedural or other legal barriers. Having said that, I am nevertheless alert to an important but crucial matter which none of the parties seem to have addressed their minds to. It is also a matter that, given its determination on jurisdiction, the court a quo could not have considered. This is the question of joinder, and specifically, a consideration of whether or not all interested parties to this dispute were brought before the court a quo. It is in my view safe to assume that, with the election materials sought to be accessed by the appellant being stored together with those relating to the Presidential and Local Government elections, candidates in the latter two elections must have had a vested interest in the subject matter of the litigation, as well as the relief sought therein. To that extent, the candidates concerned may have wished to have their views known to, and considered by, the court, on whether or not in the absence of a challenge to their election, the ‘residue’ relating to their respective election results should be uncovered. This is particularly so given that the unsealing of the boxes in question would have been at the instance of another candidate, not themselves. I therefore entertain no doubt that theirs was the type of interest generally qualified as being ‘direct and substantial’. In other words, interest that necessitated their being joined as parties to the dispute.