Nandlall just doesn't want the matter heard on its merits.  If there is nothing to hide why not have the Court decide whether the 2020 election was rigged.

So what are Jagdeo and Nandababa  afraid of? Do they not subscribe to the democratic process? Then they should let the appeal be heard.  Guyanese need to know the truth once and for all.

The Caribbean Court of Justice - CCJ -, is the ultimate place to make the legal decisions on matters pertaining to Guyana.

It's kinda suspicious why dem 2 fellas want that election petition case dead and buried. What a sop story.

Election petition will be heard during the proposed Caribbean Court of Justice session.

While it is indeed academic now; 2015 election petition filed on behalf of the PPPC in the Court was never held during the PNCR/APNU/AFC period in government 2015 to 2020.

@Former Member posted:

Election petition will be heard during the proposed Caribbean Court of Justice session.

While it is indeed academic now; 2015 election petition filed on behalf of the PPPC in the Court was never held during the PNCR/APNU/AFC period in government 2015 to 2020.

The CCJ will look at the CofA decision that it has jurisdiction to hear and decide appeal of the CJ's ruling that the petition can't be heard because of procedural issues.  What makes you think the CCJ will be hearing the election petition?

Dismissed election petition: Jagdeo, Nandlall seek leave to challenge ruling at CCJ

Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, in his capacity as General Secretary of the PPP, and Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC are seeking special leave from the Guyana Court of Appeal to appeal against a ruling of that very court to take jurisdiction to hear an election petition filed on behalf of the APNU/AFC that was dismissed by the Chief Justice for non-service.

They are also asking the Court of Appeal for a further stay of execution on its ruling, which was rendered on December 21, 2021, until the determination of their intended appeal at the CCJ.

A previous stay was granted by the court the very day the judgement was made; however, it expired on January 4, 2022. The request for a further stay of execution is to prevent the Court of Appeal from hearing the matter until the hearing and determination of the appeal that will be filed to the regional court.

On his weekly programme – ‘Issues in the News’ – Nandlall explained that the application for special leave to appeal is simply a procedural requirement that is set out in the CCJ Act, which entails the parties first seeking leave from the Court of Appeal to file an appeal to the CCJ.

“The leave is normally granted; it is not refused. The CCJ in judgements handed down prior has explained that the Guyana Court of Appeal performs a gatekeeping function; meaning that it cannot refuse you entry once you have a right of appeal,” the Attorney General explained.

No jurisdiction

According to him, the Court of Appeal does not have jurisdiction to refuse an application unless an appeal does not lie to the CCJ. Considering this, Nandlall noted, “We are satisfied that an appeal lies, so we have to go through the procedural requirements of going before the Court of Appeal to seek leave first… Because that is how the CCJ rules are structured.”

Advocating why they have the right of appeal, Jagdeo and Nandlall cited Section 7 of the CCJ Act, which states that an appeal shall lie to the CCJ with leave from the Court of Appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal in any civil matter which, in the opinion of the latter court, the question is one that is of great general or public importance.

“The intended appeal is a matter of public interest which touches and concerns national, general and regional elections, and as such, are proceedings of great general and public importance,” reads the Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal that was filed by Jagdeo and Nandlall.

Highlighting why the court should further stay its ruling, they said, “This honourable court has a duty to protect the integrity of appeals so that they are not rendered nugatory before they are heard and determined. Unless the status quo ante is preserved, the intended appeal before the [CCJ] would be rendered nugatory insofar as the orders granted by this court would take effect before the intended appeal is heard and determined.”

As such, Nandlall and Jagdeo requested the Court of Appeal to further stay its ruling so that the CCJ “can bring a resolution of these fundamental issues which concern the interpretation of the Constitution of Guyana, as well as issues integral to Guyana’s constitutional democracy.”

Moreover, they submit that their intended appeal to the CCJ is an “arguable one” with a “realistic prospect of success”.

Ruling

In a 2-1 majority ruling, the Court of Appeal ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision of Chief Justice Roxane George, SC, to dismiss election petition #99 based on improper service/non-service.

The majority ruling was delivered by the Chancellor of the Judiciary Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory, SC, while Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud had a dissenting judgement.
The petition filed by Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse challenges the results of the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections with the intent of having David Granger declared as the duly-elected President.

In their ruling, Justices Cummings-Edwards and Gregory held that to oust the Appeal Court from hearing the appeal against the Chief Justice’s ruling would defeat the purpose of Article 163 of the Constitution of Guyana.

Justice Gregory said, “Parliament would not have left the matter for implication if a decision of the High Court was intended to be a final decision. Parliament would have so expressed. I don’t read the silence to provide an appeal procedure as a shutting out of the jurisdiction of appeal under that scheme — the National Assembly Validity of Election Act.”

As for the Chancellor, while she noted that she considered all the precedence relied on by the Attorney General, she said they failed to invalidate the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Meanwhile, Justice Persaud said that considering the unambiguous language of that constitutional provision, as well as the fact that Justice George did not dismiss the petition on its merits, but rather because of procedural errors, a right of appeal did not lie to the Court of Appeal.

“In applying the application test here, it is clear that the order made by your Honour was interlocutory. Had her Honour ruled that the second respondent was not a necessary party or that service was in time, the petition would have proceeded to trial,” noted Justice Persaud.

The Justice of Appeal added, “In any event, there was no final determination of the dispute between the parties. In the circumstances, I would strike out the notice of appeal for want of jurisdiction.”

The petition which was filed on September 15, 2020 was dismissed on January 18, 2021 by the Chief Justice as a result of the petitioners’ failure to effect service on the second-named respondent, former President David Granger, within the statutorily prescribed time.

The manner of service is prescribed in Rule 9 (1) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Rules, which imposes on the petitioners the statutory obligation to effect service within five days after the presentation of the petition.

Having been filed on September 15, 2020, the petition should have been served on Granger five days thereafter, which would have been September 21, 2020, since the fifth day – September 20, 2020 – was a Sunday.

But in Nurse’s affidavit of service, it was stated that the petition, along with the relevant documents, was only served on Granger on September 25, 2020 – five days outside of the statutorily prescribed period.

Nandlall had filed an application to have the petition struck out on the procedural irregularity, and succeeded before the Chief Justice.

At the Court of Appeal, he had argued that since Justice George never determined the questions raised in the petition, there was no statutory or constitutional jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal to hear an election petition dismissed for procedural impropriety or any other reason not stated in Article 163 (1) of the Constitution of Guyana.

However, Senior Counsel John Jeremie and Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who are representing the petitioners, told the Justices of Appeal that an appeal to a dismissed election petition not only lies under Article 123 of the Constitution, but also the Court of Appeal Act.

Also, they argued that given that the Chief Justice’s ruling was a “final order”, it can be appealed against to the Court of Appeal.

Seems like an abuse of the Judicial process.

@Totaram posted:

Nandlall just doesn't want the matter heard on its merits.  If there is nothing to hide why not have the Court decide whether the 2020 election was rigged.

The courts already decided when they throw out the petitions. What’s next? You want the court figured out why yuh chupidity nah gat cure..hahahaha [maniacal laughter]

@sachin_05 posted:

The courts already decided when they throw out the petitions. What’s next? You want the court figured out why yuh chupidity nah gat cure..hahahaha [maniacal laughter]

On a technicality Mr.Hyena...you and Nandlall don't want the substance of the petition heard.

@Totaram posted:

On a technicality Mr.Hyena...you and Nandlall don't want the substance of the petition heard.

You pnc retard needs to realize, in a democracy the courts rulings should be respected…no one including Nandall is not the law and should not have the power to want or don’t want how the courts decide to rule on anything including election petitions….

@sachin_05 posted:

You pnc retard needs to realize, in a democracy the courts rulings should be respected…no one including Nandall is not the law and should not have the power to want or don’t want how the courts decide to rule on anything including election petitions….

English is not your first language!

@Totaram posted:

English is not your first language!

la estupidez no tiene cura.……hahahaha [maniacal laughter]

@sachin_05 posted:

You pnc retard needs to realize, in a democracy the courts rulings should be respected…no one including Nandall is not the law and should not have the power to want or don’t want how the courts decide to rule on anything including election petitions….

Hey DrugB...aka as Druggie how is everything banna?

Nandlall goes to CCJ in election petition case

–  Court of Appeal extends, grants leave to appeal

Jan 20, 2022 News -- Source - Kaieteur News Online -- https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...ction-petition-case/

Kaieteur News – Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, SC, was on Tuesday given the green light to approach the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to appeal the decision of Guyana’s Court of Appeal (CAO) to hear an appeal for an elections petitions case that was thrown out.

Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, SC.

This publication had reported that on January 18, 2021, Chief Justice (Ag) Roxane George-Wiltshire, had thrown out an election petition case (99/P) –the case was thrown out on the grounds of procedural non-compliance of service on leader of the A Partnership for National Unity +Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) party and former President, David Granger.

However, the matter was later appealed and Guyana’s Appellate Court on December 21, 2021, in a majority decision, ruled that it has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal which challenged the decision of the acting Chief Justice. On that date, a stay on the decision was granted by the Court after the Attorney General and others made a request since they have intentions on moving to the CCJ over the Court’s ruling.

Following through with his intentions, on Monday January 10, 2022, Nandlall filed a Notice of Motion at the Appellate Court’s office located in Kingston, Georgetown. According to the Notice of Motion that was seen by this publication, the Attorney General asked the COA to grant an order to leave to move to CCJ to appeal the Court’s decision, and to grant a further stay on its December 21, 2021, decision pending the appeal to the CCJ.

On Tuesday morning when the matter was heard, both the stay and leave was granted by Chancellor of the Judiciary (Ag), Yonette Cummings-Edwards. While the former Attorney General (AG), Basil Williams, SC who is representing the interest of former President, David Granger stated during his address to the court that he will abide by the court’s decision – Roysdale Forde, SC who is the lead attorney representing the appellants, Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse, made objections to the Attorney General’s application.

In fact, Forde said, “I would like to bring to the court’s attention, an important consideration which is the state of this matter. Your honour I know of no case which would have been brought to the CCJ in similar circumstances where a substantive appeal is pending before the court of appeal in anyone of the signatory countries.”

Forde highlighted that the CCJ has indicated that these matters must first be heard and completed in their respective Appellate Court in that jurisdiction before the matter is brought before the CCJ. To this end he stated that it is with proper consideration that he ought to bring to the Court’s attention that the resolution has not been pointed out in any specific case by the CCJ, as to what happens in such circumstances.

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

Forde then noted that if the Appellate Court has delivered its decision on the issue of whether the type of order being sought ought to be granted, he relies on the Court’s position.

However, Trinidadian Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, Solicitor General Nigel Hawke, who appeared on behalf of the Attorney General, challenged Forde’s objection in a brief argument.

After listening to the lawyers address to the court, the acting Chancellor stated that it is desirable that the appeal be heard and that the interlocutory decision await the results of the substantive matter. “This is a matter of great public importance and given the nature of the application and the fact that the application is brought under the respective sections of the CCJ Act this court sees no reason it should not grant the leave and the stay in this matter,” she added.

To this end, the acting Chancellor ordered that the intended appellants lodge the sum of $750,000, with the Registrar as security for costs within 90 days. Kaieteur News had reported according to the document that Nandlall filed, “The intended appeal is a matter of public interest, which touches and concerns national, general and regional elections and as such, are proceedings of great general and public importance.”

It was pointed out that the intended appeal is an arguable one with a realistic prospect of success on the issue of whether the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to hear the civil appeal.

Moreover, the first election petition #99 challenging the outcome of the March 2, 2020 elections was dismissed by the acting Chief Justice, on January 18, last, while the remaining election petition #88 was thrown out on April 26, 2021, by the acting Chief Justice. As such, the matters were appealed by the appellants on behalf of the A Partnership for Nation Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Coalition who are seeking to challenge the validity of the March 02, 2020, national elections.

CCJ to rule Wednesday in Guyana’s election petition case

Caribbean Court of Justice

The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will deliver its ruling on Wednesday in Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo and Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of Guyana in which it held that it had jurisdiction to hear an election petition dismissed for improper service. On July 19, the regional court heard a plethora of arguments in the case, before reserving its ruling, which it had promised to render in the shortest possible time. Hearing the case were CCJ Justices Jacob Wit, Winston Anderson, Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Peter Jamadar and Denys Barrow.

In a 2 to 1 majority ruling on December 21, 2021, the Court of Appeal took jurisdiction to hear an appeal against acting Chief Justice Roxane George’s decision to dismiss the election—filed by Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse—based on improper service/non-service on former President David Granger, a respondent in the matter. The petition pursuant to Article 163 of the Constitution, which was dismissed on January 18, 2021, was filed on behalf of the APNU/AFC and challenged the results of the March 2, 2020, national elections with the intent of having Granger declared the duly-elected President.

Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory had ruled that to oust the Appeal Court from hearing the appeal against the Chief Justice’s ruling would defeat the purpose of Article 163 of the Constitution. The Chancellor had noted that although she had considered all the precedents relied on by Nandlall, they failed to invalidate the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal. In a dissenting judgement, however, Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud had said that considering the unambiguous language of that constitutional provision, as well as the fact that Justice George did not dismiss the petition on its merits, but rather because of procedural errors, a right of appeal did not lie to the Court of Appeal.

The manner of service is prescribed in Rule 9 (1) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Rules, which imposes on the petitioners the statutory obligation to effect service within five days after the presentation of the petition.

Having been filed on September 15, 2020, the petition should have been served on Granger five days thereafter, which would have been September 21, 2020, since the fifth day – September 20, 2020 – was a Sunday. But in Nurse’s Affidavit of Service, it was stated that the petition, along with the relevant documents, was only served on Granger on September 25, 2020 – five days outside of the statutorily prescribed period.

At the Court of Appeal, Nandlall and Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, who is representing Jagdeo, had argued that Article 163 of the Constitution bestows upon the High Court a peculiar jurisdiction to hear election petition. They argued that there is no statutory or constitutional jurisdiction given to the Court of Appeal to hear an election petition dismissed for procedural impropriety or any other reason not stated in Article 163 (1).

According to the two Senior Counsel, Article 163 constitutes the complete code of how election petitions are to be determined, lists the types of issues that are to be raised by an election petition, and also limits the grounds upon which appeals flow from the determination of those issues. Article 163, they submitted, limit appeals to be filed from decisions coming from the High Court that are commenced by an election petition only to the determination of the questions identified in that constitutional provision.

“The learned Chief Justice in her ruling struck out the petition on the ground that there was non-service. In her written decision, her honour stated that service within the time prescribed is a condition precedent to the hearing and determination of an election petition,” the Attorney General had argued. He added, “The [Chief Justice] never determined the questions which the petition raised to be determined which are the questions raised in Article 163 (1) from which Article 163 (3) says an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal upon the determination of those questions or orders consequential to the determination of those questions.” As such, Nandlall argued that with those questions having not been determined, there is no right of appeal in any other statute nor the Constitution upon which the petitioners can hinge their appeal.

But Roysdale Forde, SC, and John Jeremie, SC – who appear for the petitioners – argued that the Court of Appeal does have jurisdiction to entertain the matter under Article 123 of the Constitution and the Court of Appeal Act.

Jeremie had previously submitted that his clients had properly invoked the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to where an “automatic right” of appeal lay as the High Court had determined and made its pronouncement on the election petition.

The petitioners contend that the elections were unlawfully conducted and/or that the results (if lawfully conducted) were affected or might have been affected by unlawful acts or omissions. They are also asking the court to declare that President Dr Irfaan Ali is illegally holding office. The results of a national recount of all ballots cast showed that the PPP/C won the general elections with 233,336 votes over the coalition’s 217,920 votes.

CCJ overturns CoA’s ruling in which it took jurisdiction to hear dismissed election petition

Finding that the Court of Appeal (CoA) of Guyana erred when it took jurisdiction to hear APNU/AFC’s second petition that was dismissed by Chief Justice (ag) Roxane George, SC on the ground of improper service on former President David Granger, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Wednesday quashed the decision of the local appellate court.

The ruling effectively means that the Trinidad-based court of final resort upheld Justice George’s ruling dated January 18, 2021, and that the petitioners—Monica Thomas and Brennan Nurse—have now exhausted all their right of appeal.

The petition pursuant to Article 163 of the Constitution of Guyana challenged the results of the March 2, 2020, General and Regional Elections—on grounds that those elections were unconstitutional, null, void, and of no effect.

Ultimately, Thomas and Nurse had asked the High Court to declare that Granger was the duly-elected President and that President Dr Irfaan Ali was illegally in office.

The petitioners contended that the elections were unlawfully conducted and/or that the results (if lawfully conducted) were affected or might have been affected by unlawful acts or omissions. The results of a national recount of all ballots cast showed that the PPP/C won the general elections with 233,336 votes over the Coalition’s 217,920 votes.

The appeal to the CCJ against the CoA’s ruling was filed by Vice President Dr Bharrat Jagdeo, in his capacity as General Secretary of the PPP/C and by Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall, SC.

Delivering the Caribbean Court of Justice’s ruling was Justice Winston Anderson who, among other things, said that the regional court upheld Jagdeo and Nandlall’s argument that the CoA had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal; neither from statute, the Constitution nor does it have an inherent jurisdiction.

According to the CCJ, Article 163 of the Constitution limits appeals to be filed from decisions coming from the High Court that are commenced by an election petition only to the determination of the questions identified in that constitutional provision.

The apex court held that the Chief Justice’s decision demonstrated that the petitioners’ appeal was not a question of validity under Article 163 (1) but rather an ordinary question of law regarding service pursuant to the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Rules.

With those questions having not been determined, the CCJ held that the petitioners had no right of appeal in any other statute nor the Constitution upon which they could have appealed Justice George’s ruling. In light of the foregoing, the CCJ allowed the appeal filed by Jagdeo and Nandlall and ordered that each party bear their own costs.

In a 2 to 1 majority ruling on December 21, 2021, the Court of Appeal took jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the acting Chief Justice’s decision to dismiss the election petition
based on improper service/non-service on Granger, a respondent in the matter.

Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory had ruled that to oust the Appeal Court from hearing the appeal against the Chief Justice’s ruling would defeat the purpose of Article 163 of the Constitution. The Chancellor had noted that although she had considered all the precedents relied on by Nandlall, they failed to invalidate the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal. In a dissenting judgement, however, Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud had ruled that considering the unambiguous language of that constitutional provision, as well as the fact that Justice George did not dismiss the petition on its merits, but rather because of procedural errors, a right of appeal did not lie to the Court of Appeal.

The manner of service is prescribed in Rule 9 (1) of the National Assembly (Validity of Elections) Rules, which imposes on the petitioners the statutory obligation to effect service within five days after the presentation of the petition.

Having been filed on September 15, 2020, the petition should have been served on Granger five days thereafter, which would have been September 21, 2020, since the fifth day – September 20, 2020 – was a Sunday. But in Nurse’s Affidavit of Service, it was stated that the petition, along with the relevant documents, was only served on Granger on September 25, 2020 – five days outside of the statutorily prescribed period.

Nandlall apologises for leaking CCJ ruling on election petition

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall has issued an apology after an advanced confidential copy of a Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) judgement on an elections petition matter was posted to his Facebook page.

Nandlall faced backlash this morning, overshadowing the outcome of the case which was ruled in his favour. The CCJ found that the Court of Appeal (CoA) in Guyana does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed to challenge the dismissal of APNU+AFC’s Election Petition 99 of 2020.

An advanced copy of that ruling was sent to all parties with the understanding that it be embargoed.

But according to Nandlall, while he was overseas on official government business, an administrator of his Facebook page, unauthorisedly, made a post which disclosed some contents of judgement. Nandlall said that as soon as he became aware of the post, he ordered it removed.

“I hereby offer to the CCJ my sincerest apologies for this grave error. Absolutely no disrespect or ill-motive inspired was intended, or was connected with this post,” he said moments ago.

High Court decision final on election petition matter – CCJ rules

Oct 20, 2022 News --- Source --- https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...on-matter-ccj-rules/

Kaieteur News – The PPP/C Guyana Government has secured victory at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) after the court found inter alia that the Guyana Court of Appeal (COA) had no right to entertain the elections petition which was dismissed by Chief Justice (Ag.) Roxane George-Wiltshire over of late service on A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) Representative of the List, David Granger.

CCJ Justice Jacob Wit

The majority of the panel of the CCJ, Justices Winston Anderson, Maureen Rajnauth-Lee and Jacob Wit found that the Court of Appeal possesses no Jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the dismissal of an Election Petition on the ground of late/non-service on an interested party.

The majority indicated that under the constitutional provision no appeal lay from the striking out of an Election Petition. In dissenting opinions, Justices Denys Barrow and Peter Jamadar ruled that the Full Court possessed the Jurisdiction to entertain an appeal where an Election Petition was dismissed for non/late service on an interested party. Justices Barrow and Jamadar opined that Section 42 of the National Assembly Validity of Elections Act conferred the Full Court with Jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal.

CCJ Justice Winston Anderson

In delivering the decision on Wednesday, the CCJ’s Justice Winston Anderson stressed that the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine elections petition matters. He explained that although, Article 163 of the Constitution gives the right to Appeal- a decision of the High Court, dismissal on the grounds of a technicality does not fall within that right. “It could not be accepted, that proceedings which began in the High Court under this exclusive, exclusionary and special jurisdiction dealing with elections petition suddenly transmogrified into ordinary civil law proceedings on appeal,” Justice Anderson said in delivering the ruling.

CCJ Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee

The CCJ Judge said that because Mr. Granger was who was a “right and proper party” in the petition in the matter, he should have been served within the stipulated five days as set out by the Constitution. Justice Anderson said election petition matters must be resolved in strict compliance with the Constitution.

“Neither is it, permissible to depart from or import into by implication a jurisdiction not created in the article… The Court emphasised that article 163 (3) circumscribes the right to appeal decisions of the High Court in elections petition to only two circumstances. The Chief Justice struck out the petition on the basis that there was improper or late service on Mr. Granger. Her decision did not fall into either of these two circumstances and thus no appeal was possible,” Justice Anderson noted.

The majority of the CCJ panel of five disagreed with the Guyana Court of Appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Court emphasised that Article 163(3) of the Constitution limits the right to appeal decisions of the High Court in election petitions to only two circumstances. one, an appeal from a decision of the Judge granting or refusing leave to institute proceedings to determine questions stated in Article163(1) of the Constitution and two, an appeal from the determination of any of those questions in Article 163(1) or an order made in consequence of such determination.

CCJ Justice Denys Barrow

CCJ Justice  Peter Jamadar

The Attorney General and Mr. Jagdeo argued that the Chief Justice’s decision did not fall into either circumstance. Therefore, Ms Thomas and Ms Nurse had no right to appeal the decision.

However in dissenting opinions, Justices Barrow and Jamadar ruled that the Full Court possessed the Jurisdiction to entertain an appeal where an Election Petition was dismissed for non/late service on an interested party.

Justices Barrow and Jamadar opined that Section 42 of the National Assembly Validity of Elections Act conferred the Full Court with Jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal. Consequently, the CCJ majority set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal to hear the case.

Last year, Monica Thomas and Brendan Nurse, the duo who filed the case on behalf of the main Opposition Coalition had challenged the Chief Justice’s decision at the Guyana Appeal Court (COA). The majority of Judges at the COA held that they had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the decision of Chief Justice George, who had dismissed the Election Petition # 99 of 2020.

The Appeal Justices had handed down a 2-1 decision. Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards and Justice of Appeal Dawn Gregory allowed the appeal, while Justice Rishi Persaud dissented from their position. That was successfully challenged by Jagdeo and Nandlall.

Jagdeo and Nandlall had contended that the majority of the COA erred in law and had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal; neither from statute, the Constitution, nor does it have an inherent jurisdiction.

At the Trinidad based Appellate Court, they challenged the decision of the Guyana Appellate Court to hear the appeal over the dismissed election petition case. The CCJ therefore delivered the ruling against a decision of the Court of Appeal of Guyana in which it held that it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the election petition dismissed for improper service. The Court also ordered that each party should bear its own costs.