[4] This requested reform was not forthcoming and the Claimants contend that due to the irregularities which existed and which would be have been cured had there been electoral reform the result of the elections on the whole were not satisfactory. [5] After the elections, members of the Claimants’ party filed election petitions which are currently before the courts at the time of the filing of the actions and the hearing of this application.   [6] After the elections it was decided at the party level that those members of the UWP who won their seats (that is the Claimants) herein would not take up their seats unless it was absolutely necessary or until the court ruled on the Petitions.  [7] The Claimants contend that they and their party colleagues also decided not to take up their seats in Parliament in objection to the first named Defendant being nominated and elected as Speaker of the House in view of her incompetence to efficiently effectively perform her duties as Speaker and her inability to be fair and non partisan in the house. The Claimants therefore did not attend the first sitting of the House Assembly after the elections. [8] The Claimants also did not attend the second and third meetings of the House and they contend that pursuant to order number 15 (1) of the Standing Orders of the House they duly informed the Clerk of the House that they were unable to attend the said meetings of the House of Assembly which were scheduled for the 29th March ,2010 and the 29th April, 2010.   [9] The Claimants in their affidavits stated that they each received a response from the Clerk of the House stating that they did not request leave from the House and they were therefore in breach of the Standing Orders of the House. [10] On the 4th May 2010, the claimants were informed by the first named Defendant that they were absent from three consecutive meetings of the House of Assembly and accordingly that their seats had been vacated.    3