(b) with respect to the persons by whom, the manner in which and the conditions upon which proceedings for the determination of any question such as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph may be instituted in the Court of Appeal, and, subject to any provisions made under subparagraph (b), provision may be made with respect to the matters referred to therein by rules of court. (6) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (4), an instrument which – (a) is expected under the hand of the Chairman of the Elections Commission; and (b) states that a person named in the instrument was declared elected as President at an election held pursuant to the provision of article 60(2), shall be conclusive evidence that the person so named was so elected and no question as to the validity of the election as the President of the person so named shall be enquired into any court. The Application made to the Court of Appeal [12] Ms David’s Application to the Court of Appeal outlined that she was seeking Orders that (a) GECOM had failed (or, presumably, was failing) to determine a final credible count and or the credibility of the result of the Elections as required by Order 60; (b) The Court should interpret the words ‘more votes are cast’ in Article 177 (2) (b); and (c) The CEO should be restrained from complying with the Direction of the GECOM Chairperson, as set out in the Chairperson’s letter of 16 June, without GECOM determining ‘the final credible count’ and or the credibility of the Elections as required by Order No. 60 of 2020 and s 96 of the Representation of the People Act.