WALLIS AJ (a) Should leave to appeal be granted? (b) Did the Electoral Court have jurisdiction to hear and determine the applicants’ complaints? (c) Were the applicants confined to the remedies provided by section 15 of the Electoral Act and section 65 of the Municipal Electoral Act? (d) Were there electoral irregularities? (e) Were the by-elections free and fair? (f) If not, what relief should be granted? Condonation [24] On 28 August 2015 the Registrar received a letter from the IEC’s attorneys informing him that due to a miscommunication between the attorneys and counsel the record delivered on behalf of the applicants did not include the annexures to the answering affidavit on behalf of the IEC, as well as some other documents. The record had originally been delivered on 28 July 2015 and the IEC’s written submissions were delivered on 13 August 2015, so this was very late to submit additional documents to this Court. [25] The attorneys informed the Registrar that they would deliver three further volumes of record on 31 August 2015 and this was done. There was no formal application seeking the leave of the Court to supplement the record. On 2 September 2015, the IEC was directed to make a substantive application for the admission of these documents and condonation for the failure to deliver them at an earlier stage. [26] An application was duly lodged on 4 September 2015 and the applicants indicated that they did not oppose condonation. However, the application made no attempt to explain how the alleged miscommunication between the attorneys and counsel occurred. So there was no explanation for the failure to resolve the problems with the record when it was originally filed, nor any explanation why this was not 13