(delivering the judgment of the Court): These are appeals from the decision of George Seah J., dismissing the applications of the appellants ("the applicants") that certain election petitions presented in Kota Kinabalu be struck out on various grounds.

On Wednesday, December 23, 1981, we dismissed the appeals with costs and now give our reasons. In these appeals we only considered the question whether or not the Federal Court had jurisdiction to entertain them.

A total of twenty-six election petitions numbered 1 to 26 of 1981 were presented in the High Court at Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, challenging the elections of 26 members of the Sabah Legislative Assembly from various constituencies in the State following publication in the Gazette on April 23, 1981, of the results of the State Elections held in the previous March. Each petitioner alleges that each of the 26 respondents therein (i.e. the applicants) was personally or by his agents guilty of corrupt practices of aiding, abetting or procuring the commission of the offences of bribery, treating and undue influence before, during and after the the said election contrary to the provisions of sections 8, 9, 10 and 32(a), (b) and (c) of the Election Offences Act, 1954 (Revised 1969) ("the Act"). Each petitioner therefore prays for a determination that the 26 applicants were not elected or returned and that the said elections be declared void. Each petitioner deposited a sum of $3,000 as security and gave notice of the presentation of his election petition in The New Straits Times on May 28, 1981.

Subsequent to the publication in The New Straits Times, notices of motions were taken out by all applicants to have the 26 election petitions struck out on the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioners had failed to comply with the provisions of rules 3, 4(1)(b), 12(1) and (2) and 15 of the Election Petition Rules 1954 ("the Rules") and section 34 of the Act.

Following the filing of the notices of motions, the petitioners in Petitions Nos. 1, 3, 6 and 26 applied for leave to withdraw their Petitions. We are not concerned with these Petitions.

By consent, the notices of motions in respect of the other 22 petitions were heard together.

In the course of the hearing, Mr. Dominic Puthucheary conceded that the petitioner in Petition No. 7 was not a candidate in the election for the constituency ward N 12 (Labuk) and that he had no locus standi to present an election petition under section 34(c) of the Act. In view of this the learned judge struck out the petition. On November 11, i.e. two days after delivery of the judgments appealed from, leave was given for the withdrawal of Petition No. 13. In these appeals we are not concerned with these two petitions either.

For the record, in these appeals we are concerned only with petitions Nos. 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25.

Before Seah J. the applicants argued that these 20 petitions should be struck out on three grounds.

The applicants contended first that six petitioners (in petitions Nos. 4, 13, 15, 18, 22 and 23) had not complied with rule 4(1)(b) of the Rules; secondly that none of the petitioners had complied with rule 12(1) and (2) regarding the deposit of security for costs; and thirdly that none of them had complied with rule 15 in that they failed to serve their petitions by publishing a notice in newspaper circulating within the constituencies in which the elections were held.

There is no need to give details of these arguments, because they appear in full in the judgment appealed from. Suffice it to say that the learned judge rejected all of them and refused to strike out any of the petitions. If the matter had rested there, this would mean that the judge should next proceed to hear the merits of each of these petitions and determine the matters in dispute accordingly.

But the applicants appealed to this court.

By consent these appeals were heard together as the same three points aros