Edgar Joseph Jr SCJ:

[1] I have had the advantage of reading the draft judgment of Tun Abdul Hamid LP in the Principal Appeal, being Appeal No 44/9l, with which the present appeal is closely connected, and am in complete agreement with it and have nothing to add.

[2] I must now address the issues which arise for decision in the present appeal.

[3] Encik Zainur Zakaria, Counsel for the appellants (the first and the second defendants), in outlining the agreed facts upon which he relied, pointed out that consequent to the State Legislative Assembly of Kelantan (the first defendant) having passed the resolution pursuant to the impugned legislation referred to in the judgment of the Lord President, the first and the second respondents (the first and the second plaintiffs) had ceased to be members of the State Legislative Assembly of Kelantan, and had had their seats for the constituencies concerned declared vacant, and a by-election had been conducted by the Election Commission, wherein the first and the second plaintiffs had stood for election as candidates, but were defeated whilst the victorious candidates were Haji Samat bin Mamat and Haji Mahmud bin Haji Yaacob.

[4] Yet, said C