to suit are not applicable to the case at bar, that the decisions made in those cases failed to cite any authority in support of their decision and that the State proceedings act does no apply to this matter as this is not a suit in tort of contract. [34] As it regards the Speaker of the House being amenable to suit, I agree with the submission of Mr. Richards, that the Speaker has been successfully sued before the Court and that there is nothing preventing her from being sued. Redhead JA (as he then was) in the Sabroche case15 agreed with the submission of Mr. Anthony Astaphan when he said:  “The courts have a responsibility and duty to ensure that every authority, inclusive of the House of Assembly act in accordance with legislation, statutory rules and laws …”  I understand this to mean that the court can review the actions of the Speaker of the house, that is, if there is a cause of action.  [35] Redhead JA went on to say: “I shall go further and say the constitution of the Commonwealth of Dominica is the supreme law of the land. The House of Assembly gets its authority from the Constitution; the court being the sentinel of the constitution must act and has a duty to act when any authority acts in non conformity with any rules or laws which derives under the very constitution.”16  [36] I align myself with this view that applications can be made to the court where the Speaker of the House is a Defendant. There are a plethora of cases where the Speakers of the House in many jurisdictions with written Constitutions have been brought before the court in a variety of matters. I would therefore rule that the 15 16    ibid   Civil  Appeal number 20 of 1997 (Dominica) page 15  11