vii. The itemisation of the expenses in the Applicant's Income and Expenditure Account is contrary to the Political Parties Act and the Election Expenses Act and is fabricated and exaggerated. The expenses are also not itemised in a detailed manner to facilitate detailed responses by the Respondent; and the evidence of the breakdown submissions on Respondent should effectively to ought to reparations be challenge, have been provided within the time given ample verify with the limit provided. The opportunity and to participate authenticate all specific documents related to the transactions. viii. Generally, the claim for costs of litigation before the domestic courts is contested and is against the order of the Court that each Party shall bear its own costs. Furthermore, the Applicant has not detailed what these costs are and has not submitted evidence to prove that he incurred them. been awarded award him In addition, the Applicant has never costs by the national courts and the Court cannot these particular costs as it will be usurping the jurisdiction of the national courts in this regard. ix. The current Constitutional review process is_ sufficient reparation for the non-pecuniary damage claimed. x. The Respondent strongly disputes the Applicant’s claim for costs of litigation before the Court amounting Thousand, Two Hundred and to US$ Fifty United 60,250.00 (Sixty Dollars). The States Respondent contends that this claim is misplaced and contrary to the arrangement between the Applicant and his Counsel. Ae The a Respondent states that this is an attempt by the Applicant for “the Wu Pv : Ne £0