[2018] CCJ 13 (AJ) [18] In disposing of the appeal, the Court of Appeal considered three main issues: (i) whether Professor Ventose had locus standi to bring his application for judicial review, (ii) whether there was any basis to quash the declaration of Gibson CJ and (iii) whether there was any basis to quash the mandamus order of Gibson CJ. [19] The court first held that Professor Ventose did not have locus standi under section 6(a) of the AJA as he failed to show that his interest was adversely affected by an administrative act or omission since his claim for registration had not been formally refused in the prescribed form. However, the court did find that he had standing under section 6(b) as the application for judicial review raised issues which were justiciable in the public interest. [20] Second, the court held as follows: “The uncontroverted evidence is that Professor Ventose not only satisfied the qualification requirements listed in section 7, but more crucially, also complied with the provisions of Cap 12 and the regulations relating to the registration of electors. According to s 11, he therefore became a person ‘qualified to be registered.’ However, there is nothing in section 7 or section 11, or, for that matter, any other provision in Cap 12 or the regulations, which entitles a person ‘as of right to be registered as an elector.’” Thus, the Court held that Professor Ventose was entitled only to a declaration that ‘he is a person qualified to be registered as an elector’. [21] Since the court considered neither section 7 nor section 11 imposes any duty on any EBC officer to do anything, the court quashed the mandamus order of the Gibson CJ compelling the CEO to register Professor Ventose. The court did, however, acknowledge the power to grant another remedy under section 5(3) of AJA and found that Professor Ventose was entitled to an order of mandamus pursuant to section 16(1) of the Act which imposes a duty on the appropriate registration officer to determine claims for registration and ordered the EBC to make the determination on Professor Ventose’s claim within 24 hours [of the day on which the judgment was given] using only the qualification criteria in sections 7 and 11 of the Act.