Following the declaration by the ZEC on 3 August, the time limit to challenge the results expired on 10 August. In the only application lodged, the MDC Alliance aggrieved presidential candidate N. Chamisa (herein under: the applicant) asked the Court to declare that the presidential election was not conducted in accordance with the law, that the result announced by ZEC and the concomitant declaration that E.D. Mnangagwa (herein under: the first respondent) was the duly elected President is declared unlawful and set aside, and that the Court declares the applicant, Chamisa, the winner.96 Alternatively, the applicant asked the Court to order fresh elections to be held within 60 days of the court order. The application was based upon two main grounds: that ZEC failed to follow the processes related to the collation and announcement of the results; and that the actual results announced are afflicted by mathematical and statistical errors in a manner that affects their validity.97 The applicant also alleged that ZEC, in the run up to the polls, involved itself in a series of constitutional98 and electoral law99 violations all of which had the effect of undermining the impartial conduct of the elections. Despite the important number of pre-election court cases that challenged certain issues, that the application alleged amounted to constitutional and electoral law breaches,100 the founding affidavit made limited reference to these. Moreover, the application did not include evidence for some of the averments made, while among the supporting evidence only 47 v11 forms (out of a total of some 11,000) were adduced. Preliminarily, the Court considered that the application was defective as not served upon the respondents in accordance with the Constitutional Court Rules and the Court’s interpretation of the reckoning of time, but condoned due to the “importance of the matter and the public interest”. However, it avoided addressing the role of the Court’s sheriff who failed to serve the application on time although the sheriff had been, as supported by evidence, duly instructed by the applicant. 96 The application was filed against the president-elect, the other 21 presidential candidates as well as the ZEC, its Chairperson and the Chief Elections Officer. 97 Such as, inter alia, a difference of 40.000 more votes cast for the Presidential than for the National Assembly election; differences between v11 and v23 forms, showing an inflation of the first respondent’s votes and deflation of the applicant’s; more people than those registered voted in some polling stations and in cases it is the 1 st respondent who collects the bulk of the votes, the discrepancy being some 31.204; ZEC collated results twice at some polling stations, leading to an increase of 9.035 votes; no results sheets were posted at 21 percent of polling stations. 98 In particular, the constitutional breaches alleged were the lack of independence, transparency and accountability of the ZEC, the failure of state owned media to comply with the constitutional obligation of impartiality and objectivity while the ZEC also failed to fulfill its relevant obligation to ensure compliance, and the partisan conduct of traditional leaders and members of the security sector. 99 The alleged electoral law violations included, inter alia, the lack of access to the full version of the voters roll, the design of the presidential ballot paper, polling station results not posted at 21 percent of polling stations, violation of postal voting procedures, intimidation and coercion by soldiers and ZANU PF officials against rural inhabitants, and inducements to voters including food aid and agricultural input scheme. 100 Such as court applications challenging the independence of ZEC, the release of the provisional voters roll, ZEC’s transparency in its operations, the conduct of postal voting by members of the security forces, or the political neutrality of traditional leaders. 43