Lawyer Bory S. Touray for UDP submitted that the 28 December ruling was anchored on Rule 11 of the Elections Petition Rules and argued that the court failed to avert its mind to section 98 of the Elections Act.

Lawyer Bory S. Touray for UDP submitted that the 28 December ruling was anchored on Rule 11 of the Elections Petition Rules and argued that the court failed to avert its mind to section 98 of the Elections Act.

“We submit that the instant application was made within the required timeframe, and a petitioner cannot comply with both section 98(2) and Rule 11 of the Election Petition Rules,” Lawyer Touray said.

Lawyer Touray  argued that the court failed to accord them the opportunity to address the single isolated issue on the failure to comply with Rule 11 and argued the court, in the interest of justice, to allow them to make an application for review of the case.

The discontentedW UDP now wants the court to allow it to make a formal application for a review of the ruling against them. The application is made pursuant to the provisions of section 8 of the Supreme Court Act Cap 6:05 and Rule 54(c) and (d) of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2015. Rule 54(1) provides as follows:

“The Court may review any decision made or given by it on any of the following grounds:

(a) Exceptional circumstances which have resulted in a miscarriage of justice;

(b) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the Applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decision was given;

(c) In addition to paragraphs (a) and (b) above, all applications for review shall be subject to the leave of the court first had and obtained;

(d) The application for leave shall be made ex parte not later than 15 days of the decision sought to be reviewed;”