Williams v Giraudy and Bourne

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Davis, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 13 October 1975
• Neutral Citation: LC 1975 CA 1
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 13 October 1975
• Docket Number: Motion No. 1 of 1975

Court of Appeal

Davis, C.J., St. Bernard and Peterkin, JJ.

Motion No. 1 of 1975

Williams

and

Giraudy and Bourne

Appearances:

Winston Cenac, Beryl Edwards with him, for applicant.

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

Constitutional law - Election — Election petition

Practice and procedure - Appeal

Constitutional law - Constitution of St. Lucia, S. 34 — Interpretation—

Facts: This was a motion for leave to appeal from an Order made by a judge dismissing the application of the applicant for enlargement of time to furnish particulars in an election petition. The issue was whether the decision of the judge in refusing to enlarge the time was a decision in a proceedings under section 34 of the Constitution.

Held: The decision of the Court was a decision in an election petition and a proceeding under section 74 of the Legislative Council (Election) Ordinance Cap. 121. Section 34 of the Constitution states that no appeal shall lie from any decision of the Court of Appeal in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by subsection (6) of this section. Leave to appeal refused.

No appeal shall lie from any decision of the Court of Appeal in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by subsection (6) of this section and no appeal shall lie from any decision of the High Court in proceedings under this section other than a final decision to determining such a question. Leave to appeal refused.

Davis, C.J.

1 This is a motion for leave to appeal from an order made by Bruno J. dated 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 he 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 to Words 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. Westminister 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 under section 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 to be found in section 29. Section 30 mentions 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...