Williams v Giraudy

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Renwick, J.
• Judgment Date: 30 July 1977
• Neutral Citation: LC 1977 HC 10
• Docket Number: No. 132/1974
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 30 July 1977

High Court of Justice

Renwick, J.

No. 132/1974

Williams

and

Giraudy

W. Cenac, Q.C., Ms. B. Edwards with him for the petitioners.

Floissac, Q.C., K. Monplaisir with him for the respondents.

Constitutional Law - Election — Petition for election to be declared void — One set of ballot papers not placed in box with others, but the Returning Officer knew where it was and he presented it still sealed — No objection by those present when he showed that it was still sealed — Petition dismissed — To hold otherwise would result in disenfranchisement of those who voted.

Renwick, J.

1 These proceedings have a long history a part of which I outlined in my judgment delivered on 13th April, 1976. After the interlocutory orders which have been made the only allegation on which the petitioner now seeks relief is that contained in paragraph 4(h) of his petition and is as follows:

“On the 7th May, 1974, when the said Returning Officer opened the ballot box for Polling Station K1 (J-Z) at the Vieux-Fort Boys' Primary School on or about 10 a.m. to continue with the final count, the envelope containing the ballot papers of the respondent Emmanuel Henry Giraudy was missing and after a search was carried out, a brown envelope containing the ballots of the respondent Emmanuel Henry Giraudy was found lying on a desk in the office of the Head Teacher of the Vieux-Fort Boys' Primary School.”

2 On the 6th May, 1974, a poll was held in the constituency of Vieux Fort South for the election of a member of the House of Assembly of St. Lucia. At the election the petitioner and the first-named respondent were the only candidates. The second-named respondent was the Returning Officer.

3 At the close of the poll a preliminary count of votes was held, and at the end of this a mere two (2) votes separated the candidates it having been found that the petitioner had received 801 votes and the-respondent Giraudy 799. The final count, which was to be held next day, was therefore crucial, and demanded the strict attention of all concerned.

4 The events which followed the preliminary count in polling division K1, J-Z and the final count of the votes for the respondent Giraudy therein are my main concerns as far as the finding of the facts are relevant to the issues before me in this matter.

5 In the said polling division the respondent Giraudy at the end of the preliminary count received 136 votes.

6 The Presiding Officer as he is required to do, placed the ballots cast for the respondent Giraudy in an envelope, which he sealed, and he then placed this envelope in a larger envelope. While placing the ballots and other election documents and material in the ballot box in keeping with the relevant provisions of the Legislative Council (Elections) Ordinance, Cap. 121, as amended and adapted (hereinafter called “the Ordinance”), the Presiding Officer discovered that the envelope containing the ballots of the respondent Giraudy could not together with the other envelopes and election material fit into the ballot box as it was too small. He then closed, locked and sealed the ballot box and carried it and the envelope containing the ballots cast for the respondent Giraudy into the adjoining room which was the office of the Returning Officer where he left them in the custody of the Returning Officer.

7 All the ballot boxes and other election material for the constituency were than carried away for safe keeping overnight as the final count was to take place next day.

8 When the petitioner arrived at the school, which was where the final count was to be held, the school was still closed. Shortly afterwards the ballot boxes and election documents and material were brought, the school was opened and the ballot boxes were put on the floor close to a table in the room where the count was to be conducted. This room adjoins the office of the Returning Officer. The other documents and material were taken into the office of the Returning Officer.

9 The Returning Officer took up his position at the table and others sat or stood around keeping a keen eye on what was being done.

10 While the final count was in progress, the Returning Officer discovered that the envelope containing the ballots cast for the despondent Giraudy in polling division k1, J-Z was not in the ballot box. He drew this to the attention of the Presiding Officer who was present. The latter approached the table, looked into the ballot box and said “Oh! I know what happened.” He then, in full view of all present, entered the office of the Returning Officer and took up an envelope from among others on a desk, broke the seal of that envelope and after opening that envelope took a brown envelope out of it and on his return handed that envelope to the Returning Officer.

11 The Returning Officer examined the envelope and said that the seal was intact. He then held it up so that those present could see that what he had said was true. After having so done, he opened the envelope and counted the ballots therein. He found that there were 136 valid ballots cast for respondent Giraudy in that envelope. Following this, the Returning Officer called for the poll book, examined it and showed it to those present. There was no dissenting voice.

12 Mr. Allan Louisy, who was the petitioner's agent at the final count was present throughout and asked the Returning Officer if the envelope with the respondent Giraudy's ballots should not have been in the ballot box to which the Returning Officer replied “yes”.

13 While the rejected ballots were being checked by the Returning Officer, he ruled one of these as being validly cast for the respondent Giraudy thus one more vote was added to the latter's tally. In the final count the petitioner had 765 votes and the respondent...