Judgment No. SC 69/15 13 Civil Appeal No. SC 9/14 material not related to a particular candidate, I am not persuaded that the absence of such rules constitutes a lacuna of the nature found by the court a quo to exist. One other matter merits comment. The appellant takes issue with the fact that, having put in place a system that ‘harmonised’ the election residue sought by the appellant, with any that related to the other candidates in the elections, the Commission now sought to rely on its own mistakes to frustrate the appellant’s quest for relief. I do not find merit in this contention. Firstly the Commission’s practical approach in packing together the residue from the three harmonised elections has not been shown to have been so grossly unreasonable under the circumstances, as to merit censure. The only blight on such a system is the one that has been brought out by this dispute, that is, the risk it created for all candidates in harmonised elections in any constituency, to be dragged into the dispute as interested parties in challenges like the one at hand. Secondly, and as I have found, the appellant was partly to blame for the predicament he now finds himself in, due to his failure to cite parties who had a real and substantial interest in the application that he filed before the court a quo. 3. Costs The first, second and third respondents have prayed that the application be dismissed with costs. The appellant, on the other hand, prays that there be no order as to costs, in the event that the appeal is unsuccessful. He contends that the appeal was important in that he sought to have the law clarified on whether a lacuna existed in our law relating to the applicability of s 70(4) of the Act.