The first and eighth Defendants have no capacities that are amenable to suit and they cannot be sued in their official capacities, that no cause of action has been pleaded against the third to the eighth Defendants and the allegations pleaded against the members of the electoral commission are misconceived and are an abuse of process. THE DEFENDANTS' SUBMISSION [26] Counsel Mrs. Baron-Royer submitted that the first and the second through eighth Defendants are servants and officials of the State appointed to perform public duties and in the circumstances they are not amenable to suit and should not have been joined as parties to the suit. Counsel cited and relied on the cases of Harry –v- Thom 6 , Kent Garment Factory Ltd. –v-Attorney General 7 and Ferdinand Frampton-v-Ian Pinard et al 8 in support of her submission.  [27] In the cases cited, the Chief Education Officer9, the Minister of Trade and Tourism10 and the Returning officer of the Constituency and the Chief Election Officers11 who were each sued in their official capacities, and in each of the cases it was held that the in their official capacities they were “servants or officials of the State (Crown), and … as such they did not have the capacities that are amenable to suit”.  [28] Counsel submitted that to be sued successfully you must either be a natural person or have legal personality endowed by legislation; that the Speaker of the House and the Chief Elections Officer do not have such personalities and therefore they should be struck; and all allegations against them in the claim must also be struck out. [29] Counsel in her presentation before the court disagreed with Learned Counsel Gildon Richards’ contention in his written submissions that based on the decision of the 6  (1967) 10 WIR 348   (1991) 46 WIR 177  8  DOMHCV2005/0149  9  Harry –v‐ Thom supra  10  Kent Garment Factory Ltd Case supra  11  Ferdinand Frampton Case supra  7   9