the Claimants a fair hearing and thereby failed to consider the true and full circumstances of the Claimants’ absence from the House before she made her declaration. [77] Learned Counsel, Mr. Gildon Richards, on behalf of the Claimants submitted further that what the Speaker did was she was seeking to determine that the members of the House had vacated their seats which is a jurisdiction held only by the High Court as provided for in Section 40(1), he further submitted that, the Constitution does not point to anybody with that jurisdiction. Counsel, urged that there is no where in the Standing Orders that she (the Speaker) has been given that jurisdiction. The Claimants are contending that when the Speaker and not the Court determined the extent of the Claimants right to be in Parliament the Speaker violated the specific provisions in the Constitution. Counsel made reference to the Sabroche case26 as authority for his submission.  [78] The Claimants also contended that the Speaker made herself a judge in her own case and that these are issues which must be fully argued at a trial for the Court’s consideration and determination. [79] The Claimants asserted that their allegations are not misconceived and that they do disclose a cause or causes of action against the Defendants and that the Claims do not constitute an abuse of the process. [80] Further, they submitted that the Defendants failed to cite any specific material particular which was omitted by the Claimant to establish a sufficient cause which is necessary to establish a sufficient case. [81] The Claimants contend that the Defendants focus is somewhat misdirected and they have disregarded the purpose of their affidavits and have wrongly focused on the Claim form only. [82] The Claimants submitted that the affidavits filed provide sufficiently detailed particulars of material facts to establish a reasonable cause of action. 26    supra  23