The UWP has had their appeal against the DLP in an alleged treating case thrown out. The court has also ruled that the complainants pay $2,000 to each of the DLP respondent in the drawn-out legal tussle. The court ordered that the awarded payment must be cleared within 21 days.
The UWP had alleged that the ruling party had engaged in treating, fraud, bribery, and manipulation to be able to win the 2019 general election. The opposition applied to have the election results cancelled in the 10 constituencies of the country, citing that the winners and the DLP engaged in underhand corruption.
High Court Judge Raulston Glasgow had thrown out the treating case for lack of merits, but the opposition appealed the decision until recently when the court ruled in favour of the defendants. Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan said the judge dismissed the appeal because the earlier decision of Justice Glasgow was not a final judgement, and the opposition had no rights of appeal for a decision which did not constitute a final judgement in law.
The High Court decided that Justice Glasgow “exceeded the scope of enquiry required on an application to strike” and that the opposition had exhausted their priviledges. Two petitioners, Hilroy Shillingford and Wayne James, had however withdrawn from the case.
In the strikeout ruling, the court stated that the appelants’ appeal against the decision of Glasgow is dismissed; and that $2,000 be paid to each of the defendants as compensation within 21 days. Defendants who were named in separate notices of appeal would still be eligible for only $2,000 compensation. SC Astaphan said DBS and the commissioner of police are also listed as defendants.
Those of us who appeared, those of the respondents who appeared, including all the elected members, the commissioner of police, the Prime Minister and others who’ve joined in this matter and DBS are now fully entitled to recover their cost from the petitioners; which is an extremely good sign that the court did not believe that there was any reasonable action in either bringing of the petition or in bringing the appeals to challenge the judgment.
Senior Counsel Anthony Astaphan
This article is copyright © 2021 DOM767
