76 principle of law in his Final Ruling. And for which, Appellants excepted and argued the issues before the NEC Board; but the NEC Board totally ignored the issues and how the evidence affected the fairness, freeness and transparency of the October 10, 2017 elections. 39. In his Final Ruling, the CDHO said that in its defense Appellee alluded to "difficulties and challenges" and the CDHO mandated Appellee to "take the necessary steps to correct what they(Appellee) referred to as difficulties and challenges before any future election". As the CDHO did not particularize what these "difficulties and challenges" were, the mandate of his Final Ruling is vague, ambiguous, uncertain and incapable of enforcement. And so Appellants/Intervenors except and argued this issue to the NEC Board; but the NEC Board did not pass on whether the CDHO's Final Ruling is vague, ambiguous, uncertain and capable of being enforced. And so Appellants/Intervenors except. 40. Also in his Final Ruling, the CDHO did not say exactly what Appellee should do "to correct" the "difficulties and challenges" faced by Appellee in its administration of the October 10, 2017 elections. So, the mandate of the CDHO's Final Ruling is vague, ambiguous, uncertain and incapable of enforcement. Therefore, Appellants/Intervenors excepted and argued the issue before the NEC Board; but the NEC Board did not pass on whether the CDHO's Final Ruling is vague, ambiguous, uncertain and capable of being enforced. And so Appellants/Intervenors except. 41. Appellants/Intervenors says the CDHO's Final Ruling, which mandates the Appellee to "take the necessary steps to correct what they (Appellee)referred to as difficulties and challenges before any future election "does not include a system or process by which it can be determined whether Appellee has complied with such vague, ambiguous, uncertain and unenforceable mandate before any future election is held and did not impose a time frame within which these necessary corrective steps should be taken. Nothing is said in the CDHO's Final Ruling how contestants in the run-off ordered by the CDHO will get the satisfaction that Appellee has complied with this mandate. And so Appellants/Intervenors excepted and presented the issue to the NEC Board but the NEC Board did not pass on the issue. And so Appellants/Intervenors except. 42. Appellants/Intervenors say that Section 82.5(2) of the Executive Law (the Administrative Procedure Act) clearly prescribes the form as to final determination and orders of an administrative agency with quasi-judicial powers. Liberian law (National Iron Ore Co. v. Gibson et al., 26 LLR 365; The Management of the National Iron Ore Co. v. Dennis et al. and The Board of General Appeals, Ministry of Labor, Youth & Sports) is very clear that in order to be enforceable a judgment (final determination), even of an administrative agency, must be certain and definite. For the ambiguity, uncertainty and indefiniteness of the CDHO's Final Ruling, Appellants excepted and presented the issue to the NEC Board but the NEC Board did not pass on the issue. And so Appellants/Intervenors except.