ii) the decision to tabulate the results of the Presidential Elections without prior """ verification with the Applicant. It is therefore prayed that the Respondents' application to set aside/discharge the permission for Judicial Review in the present case be dismissed with costs. 21. let me express my very real sense of gratitude and indebtedness to Counsel. There were so many exciting submissions. 22. I have looked at all the relevant legal framework at my disposal starting from the Constitution to the Parliamentary and Presidential Act which are the most relevant pieces of legislation in this matter. 23. I am satisfied that one mode of commencing an election matter is our law is through Judicial Review as provided for under section 76 (5) a of the Constitution. Once that route is taken, one has to make an application for Judicial Review. This Judicial Review is covered under Order 19 rule 20 of the Courts (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017. This is what the Applicants did. There have been a lot of arguments that the Applicants should not have gone to the High Court since they already lodged a complaint with the Respondent. It has also been submitted " that there is no decision to be reviewed since the Respondent is still considering the Applicants' complaints. Let me first put it on record that the decisions the applicants want to be reviewed are stated in their application. As Counsel Mvalo had observed, an election is a process and there have been several decisions/actions taken by the Respondents' presiding officers who refused to give copies of the genuine tally sheets to the Applicants' accredited Monitors. 24. It is interesting to note that in its press statement TM 5, the Respondent was ready to announce the Presidential results but for the stay granted. This gives an 8