William Bruce Williams Applicant v Emanuel Henry Giraudy Eudes Bourne Respondents [ECSC]

JurisdictionSt Lucia
CourtCourt of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
JudgeDAVIS. C.J.,ST. BERNARD J.A.,PETERKIN, J.A.,CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment Date13 October 1975
Judgment citation (vLex)[1975] ECSC J1013-2
Date13 October 1975
Docket NumberMOTION NO. 1 of 1975
[1975] ECSC J1013-2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable the Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

The Honourable Mr. Justice Peterkin

MOTION NO. 1 of 1975

Between:
William Bruce Williams
Applicant
and
Emanuel Henry Giraudy
Eudes Bourne
Respondents

Winston Cenac, Beryl Edwards with him. for applicant.

Vincent Floissac, Q.C., Primrose Bledman with him for respondent.

DAVIS. C.J.
1

This is a motion for leave to appeal from an order made by Bruno J. dated the 10th January 1975, dismissing with costs the application of the applicant for enlargement of time to furnish particulars in an election petition.

2

Counsel for the respondent at the commencement of the proceedings raised a point in limine, that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of this nature, having regard to subsection (7) of section 34 of the Constitution and consequently had no jurisdiction to grant leave.

3

Counsel for the applicant conceded that the order of 10th January 1975 was an interlocutory decision.

4

Counsel for the respondent submitted that the order of 10th January 1975, against which leave to appeal is sought, was a decision in proceedings under section 34(7) of the Constitution. He referred the Court to the marginal note to this section and submitted that any application to the Court, however minor, was a proceeding; that "Court" included judge in chambers and also a master or a district registrar; and that "proceedings" included interlocutory proceedings. On this point counsel referred toWords and Phrases Legally Defined, 2nd Edition Vol,4. He also cited the following authorities Harkness v Bell's Asbestos & Engineering Ltd. (1966) 3 All E.R.843R. V. Area Committee etc. (1967) 2 All E.R.419; R.v Westminster Rent Officer (1973) 3 All E.R.119.

5

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the decision of the learned judge in refusing to enlarge the time was not a decision in a proceeding textsection 34 of the Constitution, that the decision of 10th January was a decision in an election petition and a proceeding under section 74 of the Legislative Council (Elections) Ordinance, Chapter 121 of the Laws of St. Lucia, as preserved by sections 27 and 101(2) of the Constitution.

6

Having regard to the admission of counsel for the applicant that the order was a proceeding it seems unnecessary to decide this point and the only question which arises is whether it is a proceeding under section 34 of the Constitution or under section 74 of Cap.121. However, lest I misunderstood counsel and it is necessary to decide the point, I would hold that "a proceeding" is any step which is taken in an action before a final determination and includes interlocutory matters. The application before Bruno J. was such a step.

7

Chapter III of the St. Lucia Constitution Order 1967 deals with the legislature. Section 23 establishes the legislature. Section 24 provides for a House of Assembly. Section 25 deals with qualifications for membership of the House while section 26 deals with disqualifications. Section 27 makes provision for the election of elected members and section 28 for the appointment of nominated members. The tenure of office of the House of Assembly is be found in section 29. Section 30 text itions matters of inability as to nominated members. Section 31 provides for a Speaker and Deputy Speaker section 32 for a Supervisor of Elections, and section 33 for a clerk to the House of Assembly. Section 34 deals with the determination of questions as to membership of the House of Assembly.

8

Counsel for the applicant contended that sections 27 and 101(2) of the Constitution preserved the jurisdiction of the Court for the hearing of election petitions.

9

Section 27(1) of the Constitution in addition to providing that each constituency shall return one elected member to the House of Assembly provides in my opinion, that there should be a law setting out the manner in which such election should take place. Clearly then this is a matter which falls to be prescribed and if there is an existing law making such provisions then section 101(2) would apply, but it is to be observed that such existing legislation must be applied subject to the provisions of the Constitution. When one look at the remaining subsections of section 27 which provide for the qualification of electors and the manner of voting it will be seen that the section has nothing whatever to do with the jurisdiction of the Court in election petition.

10

On the other hand, section 34(1) of the Constitution deals with the determination of questions of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT