set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal. That decision was made without jurisdiction on the part of that Court. It was therefore not final and is of no effect. This Court is entitled and required to declare it invalid. Logically, the report of 23 June issued by the CEO which was based on it is similarly of no effect. It follows that the Appeal of Messrs Ali and Jagdeo succeeds. [54] We were addressed, with great passion, by some counsel to make a raft of consequential orders relating to the Elections. In this regard it is important to bear in mind that this case is essentially about jurisdiction, our jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, and even, implications for the High Court’s exclusive jurisdiction under the Constitution. [55] This Court’s jurisdiction has been invoked for the sole purpose of determining whether the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain Ms David’s application and to make the order(s) it made. Once we decide that the Court of Appeal’s order was made without jurisdiction and should therefore be set aside, there is nothing left upon which we ourselves would possess jurisdiction to make any further orders. To accept counsel’s suggestion and proceed down that path would be to engage in an exercise not dis-similar from the one embraced by the Court of Appeal majority and which we have eschewed. It is for GECOM to ensure that the election results are swiftly declared in accordance with the Laws of Guyana. As Guyana’s final court, we cannot, however, pretend to be oblivious to events that have transpired since December 2018. Indeed, we have had to pronounce on some of those events.56 It has been four months since the Elections were held and the country has been without a Parliament for well over a year. No one in Guyana would regard this as a satisfactory state of affairs. We express the fervent hope that there would quickly be a peaceable restoration of normalcy. Now, the Law must run its course. 56 See Christopher Ram v The Attorney General, The Leader of the Opposition, Joseph Harmon and Guyana Elections Commission; Bharrat Jagdeo v The Attorney General, Dr Barton Scotland, Joseph Harmon and Guyana Elections Commission; Charrandas Persaud v Compton Herbert Reid, Dr Barton Scotland, The Attorney General, Bharrat Jagdeo, Joseph Harmon and Guyana Elections Commission (consolidated by order of this Court dated the 29th day of March 2019) [2019] CCJ 14 (AJ)