interpretation or application of the provisions of the Constitution. Upon that finding the Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice, for certification, in accordance with section 9 (2) and (3) of the Courts Act, which states- “(2) Every proceeding in the High Court and all business arising thereout, if it expressly and substantively relates to, or concerns the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Constitution, shall be heard and disposed of by or before not less than three judges. (3) The Chief Justice shall certify' that a proceeding is one which comes within the ambit of subsection (2), and the certification by the Chief Justice shall be conclusive evidence of that fact". The consolidated matter was indeed certified by the Chief Justice as a constitutional matter. As a result of that certification, the Court below comprised of five Judges. It is important that we keep this development in mind for what is to follow. In the Court below, the issue of pleadings became contentious. The controversy has continued in this appeal but we think it need not, for the observations we now make. As we state above, there were two electoral petitions in this matter which the Court below consolidated and further the Court referred the consolidated matter to the Chief Justice for certification upon finding that there were substantive constitutional questions that required to be determined. Upon certification of the matter as constitutional, the petition procedure, as a process, ceased to exist, but the issues that were raised in the petitions survived, which issues would give context and form the basis of the issues that would further assist in the interpretation and application of the constitutional questions raised in the referral. It is apparent to us that all the parties acknowledged that the matter would proceed as a constitutional referral and, therefore, that the petition procedure was no longer the modus operand! Upon that acknowledgment, the parties proceeded to a 8