84 number of Opinions that one of the highest prerogatives of a court is to determine firstly if it has jurisdiction to decide an issue or a matter brought before it for adjudication. The Management of Paynesville City Corporation v. The Aggrieved Workers of Paynesville City Corporation, Supreme Court Opinion, march term 2013; K. Rasamny Brothers v. Burnette, 21 LLR 271, 277 (1972). Indeed, the court, as a matter of law, must decide if it has jurisdiction to dwell into a matter even if the parties do not raise the issue. Scanship v. Flomo, 41 LLR 181, 188 (2002). In fact, the Supreme Court has elucidated in manifold Opinions whether it has the requisite jurisdiction to probe into a matter even if the parties agree that it should do so, and, finding that it lacks the legal jurisdiction, it must refuse to entertain notwithstanding the agreement of the parties. Lands Mines and Energy v. Liberty Gold, Supreme Court Opinion, March Term, 2013; Mauric v. Diggs, 2 LLR 3, 4 (1908). This is because where a court is lacking the jurisdictional prerogatives, any judgment entered by it is a legal nullity and unenforceable. Firestone Plantations Corporation v. Kollie, 41 LLR 63 (2002); Farhat v. Gehkee, 30 LLR 66 (1998). It is therefore beholding of this Court, in the face of the challenge to its jurisdiction, contained in the motion to dismiss, to determine if it does possess the required legal jurisdiction to entertain the instant appeal currently before it; for while this Court has decided numerously that it is not compelled to pass upon every issue placed before it, the issue of the jurisdiction of this Court, which if not addressed could place the decision and judgment of this Court into the realm of questionable legality, is not one that can be ignored. The motion to dismiss the appeal asserts that at the onset of the case, the first complaining parties consisted of Charles Walker Brumskine and Harrison S. Karnwea, presidential and vice presidential candidates of the Liberty Party, all representative candidates of the Liberty Party, and the Liberty Party itself; that throughout the proceedings, those parties were so represented as parties to the action; that they continued to remain parties to the suit even at the level of the Supreme Court in the prohibition petition proceedings determined by the Supreme Court; that they remained parties to the proceedings before the CDHO and appealed from his ruling to the Board of Commissioners of the NEC; that all participated in those appeal proceedings before the Board; that all of them took exceptions to the adverse ruling made against them by the Board and announced