Dismissed because of non-compliance of technical requirements
PETITIONER Walter Melville of the Alliance for Change (AFC), who had petitioned the Court alleging among other things, that his party was robbed of the Linden seat, lost his court battle on a technical ground yesterday.
Agreeing with Attorney-at-Law, Mr. Anil Nandlall, for Mr. Donald Ramoutar, representative of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic, one of the six respondents, the Acting Chief Justice found that there was non-compliance to the technical requirements which the court found to be mandatory and fatal.
In the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature, the Petitioner questioned an election to the National Assembly under the National Assembly (validity of elections) Act Chapter 104.
The Elections were held on August 28, 2006.
Replying to submissions  made for and on behalf of the Petitioner, Lawyer Anil Nandlall said, “In the oral submissions I previously made in these proceedings,  I emphasized that when the High Court is dealing with an election petition, it is exercising  a special jurisdiction. I submitted that in the exercise of this special jurisdiction, the court is not possessed of the inherent and residuary power and discretion with which it is endowed when it exercises its common law or equitable jurisdiction.
The Petitioner’s submissions contain a detailed discussion on whether the provisions of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Act Chap. 104 (as they pertain to elections petition) are mandatory or directory.
Referring to another case, Mr. Nandlall went on to submit, “The fact that no evidence has been heard does not affect the general principle. The court in the present case did not refuse jurisdiction, it decided in its peculiar jurisdiction that the petitions were defective.  As a result, the petitions were dismissed.   A dismissal based on a procedural matter is nonetheless a decision in an election petition, even where the matter has not proceeded to the hearing of evidence”
On the question of service, Mr. Nandlall had submitted, “ It is respectfully submitted that not only was there non-service of the notice of presentation of the election petition and notice of the nature of the proposed security, the election petition was served outside of the time  prescribed for service thereof as provided for by rule 9 (1) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Rules, further no affidavit of Service has been  filed stating the time and manner of service as required by rule 9 (5) of the said rules
“From the court’s flyleaf, the election petition was presented on the 6th November, 2006, and served on the 23rd day of November 2006, as per the Marshal’s return of service, that is, outside of the five days period prescribed.
“As I have submitted earlier, non-compliance with these statutory requirements, though formal in nature, are fatal in respect of elections petition.
“In conclusion, having regard to the several non-compliances which afflict this petition, I respectfully submit that the petition is incurably bad and I respectfully urge this Court to dismiss the same with costs.”
After the dismissal of the petition for causes similarly requested by Mr. Nandlall, Attorney-at-Law Mr. Stephen Fraser gave notice of Appeal.