Court of Appeal in the Richard Frederick Case:12 that the first and eighth Defendants are proper Defendants in this claim. Learned Counsel, Mrs. Baron-Royer, submitted that she did not agree with learned counsel Mr. Gildon Richards’ statement that Rawlins JA said anything that was different than in the Ferdinand Frampton matter. She contended that in fact the case supports the supposition that has been advanced by her before the court and in that regard she referred to page 9 of the judgment at paragraph 1913.  [30] Counsel Mrs Baron-Royer submitted that this case supports her point that there must be legislation creating the legal persona in order for the person to be sued in his official capacity and there is no such legislation in Dominica that endows the Speaker of the House or the Chief Elections Officer with such legal personality. Counsel further said that they are mentioned in the Constitution but submitted that the Constitution does not endow them with the necessary legal persona capable of being sued.  THE CLAIMANTS' RESPONSE [31] Learned Counsel, Mr. Richards, contended that the Speaker of the House of Assembly is a proper party to the proceedings before the court even though in her official capacity. Counsel cited the case of Herbert Sabroche –v- the Speaker of the House and the Attorney General14 where the Speaker was sued and that the Court of Appeal made a decision that was binding against the Speaker as a proper party to those proceedings.   [32] Counsel further submitted that consequently this court being a lower court could not now rule that the Speaker has no capacity to be sued as that would be tantamount to placing the High Court in a superior position to the Court of Appeal. [33] Learned Counsel, Mr. Richards submitted that the authorities cited by Counsel for the Defendants in support of her point that the Speaker of the House and the Chief Elections Officer along with the other Defendants (numbers 2-8) were not amenable 12  ST LUCIA ‐ HCVAP2008/0037   Per George Creque JA “ The Comptroller is a creature of statute by virtue of the Customs Control and  Management Act (“the Act”) enjoying various powers there under in relation to the goods falling under  the ambit of the Act.  Section 133 of the Act to my mind makes it clear that the Comptroller is liable to  suit.”  14  Civil Appeal number 20 of 1997 (Dominica)  13   10