the Constitution and consequently the allegation is misconceived and no cause of action has been revealed.  [62] Counsel submitted that it is not the intention of the Constitution that it is only the Court that can declare a member’s seat vacant pursuant to section 40(1) because if that is so it would accordingly mean that it is only the Court that can determine that a person has been elected as a representative. (II) SECTION 35  [63] The Claimants also allege that the Speaker breached section 35 (1) of the Constitution22 which provides:  “A Representative or Senator (hereinafter in this section referred to as a member) shall vacate his seat in the House at the next dissolution of Parliament after his election or appointment”  [64] Learned counsel Mrs. Baron-Royer contended that this section is incapable of being breached by the speaker as it merely indicates the circumstances in which a member shall vacate his seat. [65] In support of this contention learned counsel referred to section 35(3) of the Constitution which speaks to the five other (emphasis mine) instances where a member shall vacate his seat and it was contended that it is improper for the Claimants later in their Claim to seek a declaration that the Speaker declared their seats vacant pursuant to section 35(3) and Standing Order 15 (2). Counsel submitted that the Speaker acted in compliance with Standing Order 15 (2) and declared the Claimants’ seats vacant she merely stated that which operated by law.  22  See paragraphs 29(3) of the first affidavit of Hector John, 28(3) of the first affidavit of Edison James and  Para 4(v) of the second affidavit of both Hector John and Edison James.    19