83 filed by the parties, as well as the oral arguments made before the Court in support of the positions and contentions of the parties, we have culled the following issues which we believe warrant the consideration of the Court. 1. Whether from the circumstances presented in the case, the motion to dismiss the appeal of the first appellants on ground of non-compliance with the elections appeal law and which would thereby deprive this Court of jurisdiction over the appeal with respect to the said appellants, has legal merits to warrant the dismissal of the appeal? 2. Whether or not the Chairman of the NEC should have recused himself from sitting on the appeal taken before the Board of Commissioners of the NEC on account of statement attributed to him in connection to the complaint filed before the NEC by the appellants and at the time being investigated by the Chief Dispute Hearing Officer, and did his refusal to recuse himself from the hearing impact the decision of the Board? 3. Whether the appellants established fraud and irregularities of the magnitude as to render the October 10, 2017 Elections a legal nullity and thus to warrant a rerun of the said elections? 4. Whether the NEC committed acts against the Constitution and Elections Law and Regulations governing the conduct of elections promulgated by the NEC, and were the violations sufficiently substantial to warrant the cancellation of the October 10, 2017 elections? We shall deal with the issues in the order of their presentment, not only because that course taken addresses the issues in a logical and chronological sequence, but also because firstly issue (1) speaks to the jurisdiction of this Court, without which it cannot entertain the appeal, and secondly issue (2) goes to the validity of the ruling of the Board of Commissioners of the NEC which may obviate the need for the Court to delve into the substance of the complaints filed by the first and second appellants. The first issue, relative to the legal sufficiency of the grounds set forth for the dismissal of the appeal, goes to the core of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to decide upon the merits of the appeal taken to it by the first appellants from the ruling of the Board of Commissioners denying the appeal taken to that Body from the ruling of the Chief Dispute Hearing Officer. This Court has opined in a countless