WALLIS AJ function of ensuring free and fair elections. The case is manifestly within this Court’s jurisdiction. The issues are important, concerning, as they do, irregularities in the conduct of elections. But the outcome of the by-election in August 2013 was not initially challenged and the eighth applicant’s participation in the case was merely with a view to supporting the claim for relief in relation to an enquiry. Unlike Mr Kham, he did not challenge the outcome of the by-election in ward 9 until an advanced stage of this litigation. No affidavit was filed detailing specific complaints in respect of that by-election. The delays are unexplained. When combined with the paucity of information in respect of that by-election, it means that he should not be granted leave to appeal. The remaining applicants, to whom I will henceforth be referring when I speak of “the applicants”, have prospects of success and leave to appeal should be granted to them. Constitutional and statutory framework [31] The constitutional right lying at the heart of this case is the guarantee of political rights in section 19 of the Bill of Rights. It provides that: “(1) Every citizen is free to make political choices, which includes the right— (a) to form a political party; (b) to participate in the activities of, or recruit members for, a political party; and (c) (2) to campaign for a political party or cause. Every citizen has the right to free, fair and regular elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution. (3) Every adult citizen has the right— (a) to vote in elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution, and to do so in secret; and (b) to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office.” 18