this issue was pleaded by using other terminologies as I will demonstrate in my ruling. Clearly, the issue of proportionality was not pleaded in the statement nor was it stated in the chamber summons but merely set out from the bar in the written statement submissions, I will decline to consider it as parties are bound by their pleadings. In the alternative, learned senior state attorney gave a strange but an interesting submission bear repeating: “In the alternative, we submit that the application and submission by the Applicants looked at as a whole, it only connotes and invites the Honourable Court to declare the impugned Regulations without proposing a recourse to what will happen after the same Regulations are voided, which to us will bring about a lawless state in as so far as the Online Content Regulations are concerned. In other words, the Applicants are seeking the Court to void the Regulations which will result in the proliferation of unregulated freedom on the part of online content users. It is our humble submission, therefore, that if the impugned Regulations are voided this will amount to inviting danger to the society if we are to leave the main source of information in the current world of science and technology unregulated.” With unfeigned respect to learned senior state attorney, this argument holds no water, his is but a misconception of what judicial review entails. Injudicial review the power of the High Court is limited 12