Previous 17 / 30 Next

BREACHES OF VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION: The Defendants’ submissions: [59] Learned Counsel, Mrs. Baron-Royer, in her attractive and cogent presentation of the Defendant’s application reviewed the Claimants’ Claim that Sections 40, 35 and 8(8) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Dominica were breached, by the Speaker causing injury to them. (I) SECTION 40: [60] The Claimants contend that the Speaker breached section 40 of the Constitution. This allegation is contained in paragraphs 29(2) of the affidavit of Hector John and paragraph 28(2) of Edison James’ affidavit. These paragraphs were expanded in paragraph 4(3) of the second affidavits of both Claimants. The relevant parts of Section 40 of the Constitution provides: (1) “The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any question whether (a) any person has been validly elected as a Representative of Senator; (b) any person has been validly appointed as a Senator; (c) any person who has been elected as Speaker from among persons who are not members of the House was qualified to be so elected or has vacated the office of Speaker; or (d) any member of the House has vacated his seat or is required, under the provisions of section 35(4) of this Constitution, to cease to perform any of his functions as a member of the House.” (2) An application to the High Court for the determination of any question under subsection (1)(a) of this section may be made by any person entitled to vote in the election to which the application relates or by any person who was a candidate at the election or by the Attorney General and, if it is made by a person other than the Attorney General, the Attorney General may intervene and may then appear to be represented in the proceedings. 17

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