Previous 30 / 30 Next

the matters before the court are not academic in nature and I fail to see any legally justifiable reason for the court to involve itself in the merit of the elements of this case. [107] Therefore, even though I have found that the Speaker is a proper Defendant in this matter and that there is a cause of action pleaded by the Claimants as it regards whether or not there are breaches of Sections 35 and 8(8) of the Constitution. I find that the whole issue is moot given that there was a by-election that the Claimants took part in and regained their seats. One cannot help but wonder, in the circumstances, why the Claimants did not take steps to have the by-elections suspended or why they did not take steps earlier to file their Claim as this may have had a different out come in those circumstances. [108] For the foregoing reason I find that the matter is moot and academic and ought not to be entertained by the court and accordingly this matter is dismissed. ….............................. Birnie Stephenson-Brooks High Court Judge 30

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

James v. Speaker of the House of Assembly

Resources

Preview

Legal Issue and/or Topic

Election Annulments
Election Dispute Resolution
Regional Jurisprudence

Description: The claimants are elected members of the Marigot and Salisbury assemblies. The claimants asserted the electoral results were not satisfactory and asserted that electoral reform was necessary. The claimants refused to take their seats until the complaints were heard and in response to the elected Speaker of the House on account of her alleged incompetence and inability to remain impartial. Because the claimants failed to appear at House meetings, their received notice they were notice that they were in violation of the Standing Order of the House and their seats were vacated. The President of the Commonwealth issued an election writ for Marigot and Salisbury constituencies. In 2010, the claimants were again nominated by their parties and elected to serve as public officeholders. The claimants contend before the High Court that the election writ was illegal, violated the Constitution, and was therefore void. Thus, the election held in 2010 were unconstitutional, illegal, and void. The court need not reach the merits of this case because the claimants took part in the election and regained their seats. Notably, the court indicated that the outcome may have been different had the claimants taken steps to have the election suspended or filed their claim earlier. The Claimant's suit is moot because they regained office. Accordingly, the court need not reach the merits of the case

Language

English

Geolocation

Latitude: 15.41072191312848

Longitude: -61.34989283928974

: Geolocation

Author(s): Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

Date: Jun 10, 2011

Primary Documents

Dominca- James v. Speaker of the House of Assembly.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

James v. Speaker of the House of Assembly

Primary Documents

Notifications