WALLIS AJ would, so he said, be contrary to section 25(6)(a)(i) of the Structures Act. That is incorrect, because the relevant section is section 25(6)(a)(ii) as explained above. The position is that if the Court sets aside the outcome of those by-elections there will be an obligation on the municipal manager to call and set a date for by-elections in these wards. The date must be no more than 90 days from the date of the Court’s order. According to the chief electoral officer’s explanation of the timetable for a by-election, it can be called and held in 32 days. There is accordingly ample time to hold by-elections in the present case. [116] The IEC’s concern was that the quality of the by-elections could be compromised because of the failure of voters to register in what it described as “hastily convened elections” where it would be “under extreme pressure”. On what basis the IEC said this is unclear. The question posed in this Court’s directions related to the conduct of by-elections within the statutorily prescribed period of 90 days after a court order setting the result of the previous by-elections aside. In all four instances specified in section 25(1), where a by-election has to be held, the by-election must occur within 90 days of the event triggering that by-election. Since the Structures Act came into operation in 1999 the IEC has conducted countless by-elections in every part of the country, without apparently finding these time constraints irksome or in any way a hindrance to the conduct of free and fair elections in an efficient manner. It advances no good reason why Tlokwe should be any different. The by-elections in Tlokwe in September, October and December 2013 took 40, 34 and 46 days to finalise, inclusive of registration drives. [117] In brief the reasons advanced by the IEC relate to the difficulties it says it faces in registering voters in informal townships. But this has not apparently been a difficulty in the past, nor is it suggested that Tlokwe poses unusual challenges. The IEC is also labouring under a misapprehension, which this judgment should help to dispel, that it is obliged to verify voters’ addresses when they register. That is incorrect. What they are obliged to do is obtain sufficient information from the voter as to their ordinary place of residence, to ensure that they are registered in the correct 59