Try asking the following...
Judgement
“Although the petitioner did not comply with the requirement of rule 3(d) of C.I. 10, namely, ‘the petition shall state… details of any facts in support of his case and the witnesses, if any, on whom he intends to rely for the proof of such facts,’ he was nevertheless allowed to present his case without supplying such details and to call, as a witness, the Interim Electoral Commissioner, who had not been mentioned as a witness in the petition. This indulgence was granted in an effort to give the petitioner every opportunity to demonstrate his support for the rule of law which, according to his counsel, had motivated him to file the petition. The should not be taken as a precedent, and it would have been more satisfactory if the petitioner had complied with the rules of the law governing the institution of such proceedings in his bid to establish the general rule of law. It is not necessary for us to stress that in a case like this where the rules of procedure to be followed are those of the Court of Appeal, with such modifications as may be necessary, the question posed for determination should be stated clearly and precisely, and such details of facts, with other particulars as are required by the rules to be supplied, must be given to help the court determine the issues. The position, as it turned out before us, was rather unsatisfactory with the petitioner appearing to shift his ground in an attempt to question the validity of the election on arguments which appeared to arise as the case proceeded.”