speech or other sound., data, text or images whether still or momng, except where transmitted in private communications,” and therefore submitted that under the law the Minister was required to deal with content related matters and not otherwise. Further that failure on the part of a public authority to act in accordance with the procedural requirement of the law is a ground for the interference of the court. This court was referred to the case of Council of Civil Service Unions Versus Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (HL) where the terms procedural impropriety, was used to denote the common-law grounds or heads of Judicial Review of administrative action. In resume, it is argued for the applicants that the above regulation deals with compliance, procedural and or regulatory issues which, according to Mr. Mpoki, under section 103 (1) EPOCA are solely vested to the 2nd respondent. The other reason for seeking the nullification of the Regulations is that the Regulations are in conflict with the parent Act reference being made to the definition of the word content. To support the argument that the Regulations are ultra vires, learned counsel cited the case of General Officer Commanding -in-Chief versus Subbash Chandra Yadav (1988) 2 SCC 351. Learned counsel was emphatic that the definition of the word content in the Regulations differs materially and substantially with the definition assigned by the parent Act. It was concluded that since the definition under the Regulations is in conflict