Election dispute scrutiny must stay within pleadings, with invalid ballots and draw of lots governing a tied result.

Election disputes must be confined to the pleaded case, and a recount cannot become a roving inquiry into matters outside the specific ballots in controversy. The commentary states that the High Court should have restricted itself to the four pleaded disputed ballots and the recrimination grounds. It also explains that a ballot is invalid if it reveals the elector's identity or makes the vote uncertain; on that standard, some challenged ballots were rejected while one was upheld. After lawful scrutiny and recrimination, the candidates were tied, so the statutory draw of lots governed declaration of the returned candidate.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the election petition and recrimination petition could be decided only on the basis of the pleaded disputed ballots and whether the High Court was justified in relying upon a broader recount; (ii) whether the disputed ballot papers were valid or invalid under the statutory voting rules and, after the recount and recrimination, the result had to be determined by draw of lots.

Issue (i): whether the election petition and recrimination petition could be decided only on the basis of the pleaded disputed ballots and whether the High Court was justified in relying upon a broader recount

Analysis: Election disputes are statutory proceedings and the court must remain within the pleadings. Recounting cannot be ordered as a roving or fishing inquiry, and the result cannot be based on discrepancies unearthed outside the pleaded case. The pleaded controversy was confined to the four specific ballots identified in the election petition, and the High Court ought to have restricted its consideration to those ballots and the pleaded recrimination grounds.

Conclusion: The wider recount undertaken by the High Court was impermissible, and the case had to be confined to the pleaded disputed ballots.

Issue (ii): whether the disputed ballot papers were valid or invalid under the statutory voting rules and, after the recount and recrimination, the result had to be determined by draw of lots

Analysis: Under the election rules, a ballot is invalid if it contains a mark or writing by which the elector can be identified, or if the mark makes the voter's choice uncertain. Applying that standard, two ballots rejected by the High Court were held invalid because one contained ambiguous additional marking and the other bore a legible signature capable of identification; one ballot counted for the returned candidate was upheld, and another was held invalid. After the recrimination petition was examined, the candidates stood on equal votes. In that situation the statutory method of draw of lots governed the declaration of the returned candidate.

Conclusion: The modified result left both candidates equal, and the appellant succeeded by draw of lots.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was ultimately decided in favour of the appellant, with the High Court's result modified and the returned candidate determined by the statutory draw of lots.

Ratio Decidendi: An election court must confine itself to the pleaded grounds, may invalidate ballots that disclose the elector's identity or create uncertainty as to the vote, and where the candidates are tied after lawful scrutiny the statutory draw of lots determines the result.

---