![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dominicanewsonline.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/03\/Court-3.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal of the United Workers Party (UWP) filed against the decision of High Court Judge Raulston Glasgow and cost has been awarded to the respondents.<\/p>\n
Following the December 2019 general elections in Dominica, where the Dominica Labour Party (DLP)emerged victorious, the UWP in January 2020, filed election petitions alleging several irregularities in the election process and sought to have the court overturn the results in St. Joseph, Mahaut, Morne Jaune, La Plaine, Castle Bruce, Salybia, Roseau Valley, Roseau Central, Roseau South and Wesley constituencies.<\/p>\n
The respondents in turn, filed applications to strike out the petitions on the basis, inter alia, that the petitions did not disclose causes of action against them and were abusing the process of the court.<\/p>\n
The applications to strike out the matter were heard and granted by Justice Glasgow in October 2020 and the election petitions were struck out on the basis that the petitions lacked the necessary details or specificity to disclose causes of action against any of the respondents.<\/p>\n
The high court judge also awarded costs to the respondents in the sum of $5,000.00 stating that the petitions could have done that under a single or at the most two petitions, deeming the ten a \u201cwaste of paper, time, and money, to respond to all ten petitioners which were unnecessary.\u201d<\/p>\n
Unsatisfied with that outcome, the UWP, one month later \u2013November 2020\u2013 appealed the decision claiming that the judge specifically erred in law.<\/p>\n
They also appealed against the order of cost stating that \u201cthe Order fails to consider that the Petitioner\u2019s\/Appellants summary for direction application in January 2020 requested that the petitions be dealt with as one petition and for further directions of the court.\u201d<\/p>\n
At an appeal hearing on April 28, 2021, lead counsel for the DLP team Senior Counsel (SC) Anthony Astaphan told the judges that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and asked that the matter be dismissed with cost to the respondents.<\/p>\n
He said Justice Glasgow\u2019s decision was not a final decision to which a right of appeal attached under sections 40(6) and 40(7) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Dominica (\u201cthe Constitution\u201d), and therefore there is no jurisdiction vested in the Court of Appeal to hear and determine the appeals.<\/p>\n
Astaphan further argued that it was an abuse of the court process that the petitioners came to appeal the ruling of Justice Glasgow.<\/p>\n
However, the attorney for the ten petitioners, Zahida James said this is a matter of public importance with implications for democracy.<\/p>\n
She pointed to a number of the Judge\u2019s legal findings which she says were erroneous and argued that the matter before the learned judge was of great public importance and, therefore, it is not in keeping with the overriding objective and the public interest for the election petition proceedings to end at this stage in view of the judge\u2019s errors.<\/p>\n
James added that if the ECCJ has no jurisdiction to hear the matter, politicians would feel free to do as they please.<\/p>\n
In the judgement of DBE Chief Justice, Hon. Dame Janice Pereira, Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom Justice of Appeal and the Hon. Mr. Gerard St. C. Farara, QC Justice of Appeal [Ag.], the judges said of the application challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to hear an appeal, that in the circumstances, such as the present case, it would be highly unusual for the appeal court to examine any alleged substantive errors or demerits of the decision of the high court\u00a0 prior to the determination of the threshold of jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
\u201cSuch an examination would be tantamount to an assumption of jurisdiction in relation to the substantive appeal for the purpose of determining whether the Court in fact had jurisdiction \u2013 in short assuming what could only be some residual inherent power through the back door to address alleged errors which may be viewed as matters of public importance notwithstanding the clear constitutional prohibition,” the judgement stated.<\/p>\n
They added that although election petitions involve matters of considerable public interest, there are no legal principles which permit resort to such a course in proceedings of this nature.<\/p>\n
The appeal was dismissed and the petitioners\/appellants shall, within 21 days, pay costs to each of the respondents in the sum of $2,000.00.<\/p>\n
The judges added that there is no sustainable argument in this case that the learned judge exceeded the scope of enquiry required on an application to strike, and therefore that his treatment of the respondents\u2019 applications to strike out the election petitions transformed his decision into a final decision.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe judge clearly confined himself to assessing the pleadings with a view to determining whether they were sufficient to sustain particularized cases for the avoidance of the election. In the circumstances, the judge\u2019s decision was not a final decision within the contemplation of sections 40(6) and 40(7) of the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n
The full judgement is posted below.<\/p>\n