undisputed that the petition brought by Mr. Greene was served on Mr. Adams on April 6th 2009, that is to say 14 days after the presentation of the petition. [33] Mr. Mendes SC stated that section 45(1) and (2) of the Representation of the Peoples Act Cap 379 provide that: “(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an election petition shall be presented within 7 days after the return has been made in respect of the member to whose election the petition relates. (2) If the petition questions the election or return upon an allegation of corrupt practices and specifically alleges a payment of money or other reward to have been made by the member or on his account or with his privity since the time of the said return in pursuance or in furtherance of the alleged corrupt practice, it may be presented within 14 days of the payment.” [34] It is settled law that the failure to present a petition within the period stipulated renders the petition null and void and of no effect. In Stevens v Walwyn (1967) 12 WIR 51, the Court of Appeal of the West Indian Associated States held that the requirement that a petition be presented within a particular time was substantive, not procedural, and the time could not be enlarged in the Court’s discretion, making a petition presented out of time liable to be struck out. Mr. Mendes SC also referred the Court to Braithwaite v Edwards (1967) 11 WIR 475 and Duporte v Freeman (1967) 11 WIR 497. The approach taken by the Courts in the above cases is consistent with the general approach of requiring that time limitations in relation to election petitions be observed strictly. Thus, even failure to provide security for costs with the period stipulated will render a petition void. In further support of his proposition, Mr. Mendes SC referred to Drew v Hall (1983) 33 WIR 97; Smith v Christopher (claim No. BVIHCY 2003/0097, July 23rd 2003, per Rawlins J, unreported). See also to the same effect Williams v Tenby Corporation (1879) 5 CPD 135; Allen v Wright (No.2) (1960) 2 WIR 102; Stewart v Newland (1972) 19 WIR 271; Absalom v Gillet [1995] 1 WLR 128; Ahmed v Kenndey [2003] 1 WLR 1820. 13