[2018] CCJ 13 (AJ) “as he satisfied the conditions precedent under section 7 of ROPA”2. He ordered that Professor Ventose was entitled to costs to be agreed or taxed. On that same date, the CEO sought and was granted a stay of the Order of Mandamus for 14 days. [16] It is to be noted that the Chief Justice’s decision was based upon the requirements of section 7 of ROPA having been found by him to have been satisfied, including the requirements of section 7(b) and (d), namely, that Professor Ventose had resided in Barbados for a period of at least three years immediately before the qualifying date and had resided in the constituency of St James South for a period of at least three months before that date. Indeed, the truth of these matters was sworn to by Professor Ventose in paragraph 2 of his affidavit of 10 January 2018 in support of this claim for judicial review. This was not challenged in any affidavit by the CEO, it, perhaps, being thought that his claim would founder on his reliance on his Commonwealth St. Lucian citizenship when not having permanent residence in Barbados or immigrant status therein. Court of Appeal Decision [17] On 16 March 2018, the CEO appealed against the decision of the Chief Justice. The appeal was certified as urgent and it was heard by the full Court of Appeal on 16 April 2018. On 8 May 2018, the Court of Appeal ordered the following in relation to Professor Ventose’s appeal: (i) The declaration ordered in the Ventose appeal is quashed; (ii) The order for mandamus in the Ventose appeal is quashed; (iii) An order of mandamus in the Ventose appeal directing the appellant to make a determination on the respondent’s claim for registration as an elector in Barbados within 24 hours of today’s date using only the qualification criteria as set out in sections 7 and 11 of Cap. 12. (iv) 2 Each party to bear its costs in this appeal and in the court below. At trial, counsel for the CEO conceded that Professor Ventose would be entitled to an order of Mandamus.