PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Vanuatu
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Vanuatu >> 2020 >> [2020] VUSC 107

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

  Download original PDF

Mele v Principal Electoral Officer [2020] VUSC 107; Election Petition 910 of 2020 (12 June 2020)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)
Election Petition
Case No. 20/910 SC/EP
IN THE MATTER OF:
THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1983 AND ITS AMENDMENTS
AND:
IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL GENERAL ELECTION FOR PARLIAMENT FOR SANTO CONSTITUENCY HELD ON 19TH OF MARCH 2020
BETWEEN:
Livo Mele
Petitioner
AND:
Principal Electoral Officer
First Respondent
AND:
The Electoral Commission
Second Respondent
AND:
Lulu Sakaes
Third Respondent
AND:
Joshua Leonard Pikioune
Fourth Respondent
AND:
Samsen Samson
Fifth Respondent
AND:
Alfred Maoh
Sixth Respondent
AND:
Fabiano Stevens
Seventh Respondent
AND:
Gaetan Pikioune
Eighth Respondent
AND:
Rick Tchamacko Mahe
Ninth Respondent
Date of Hearing:
Date of Decision:
4th June 2020
12th June 2020
Before:
Justice Oliver.A.Saksak
In Attendance:
Mr John Malcolm and Stephanie Mahuk for Petitioner
Mr Frederick Gilu, Solicitor General for First and Second Respondents.
Mr Daniel Yawha for Third, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Respondents
Mr Nigel Morrison for Fifth Respondent
Mr James Tari for Sixth Respondent
Mr Justin Ngwele for Fourth Respondent

DECISION


  1. The application to strike out the petitioner’s petition filed by the Third, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Respondents on 20th May 2020 and by the First and Second Respondents filed on 26th May 2020 are misconceived and premature, and are accordingly dismissed.
  2. The reasons are simple. The First is that disclosure process is still ongoing and incomplete making the applications premature at this stage. The second is that the 704 proxy votes obtained by the petitioner from the Sanma Provincial Council were validly obtained. The petitioner sought permission from the President of the Sanma Provincial Council and it was granted. Section 59 (4) of the Act is irrelevant.
  3. On the evidence thus far presented or made available by the petitioner, the Court is satisfied he has made out a prima facie case against the First and Second Respondents to warrant a full hearing of the petition.
  4. Whether his evidence is enough to show the First and Second Respondents are guilty of such non-compliance with the provisions of the Act that their conduct of polling affected the result of the election, is a substantive issue that can only be determined after all the evidence have been filed and a full hearing conducted.
  5. The applications are therefore premature and misconceived. They are dismissed for those reasons.

DATED at Port Vila this 12th day of June 2020
BY THE COURT


OLIVER.A.SAKSAK

Judge

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2020/107.html