Sanjeev Datadin, who is representing the interest of the United Republican Party (URP) in the latest election- related matter taken to the High Court, today told Chief Justice (Ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire that Chief Elections Officer (CEO), Keith Lowenfield is the main supporter of the case in question and other similar proceedings.
The attorney made this point as he argued that the principle of res judicata applies to the matters highlighted by the applicant in the current case, Misenga Jones.
Lawyers representing Lowenfield and the APNU told the court that the matter does not meet the requirement to be deemed res judicata given that while the issues were dealt with, the applicants are different.
Datadin said that while the litigants are different, the authors are obviously the same. Datadin, just like PPP’s attorney, Senior Counsel, Douglas Mendes, noted that the same lawyers are representing the issues.
Mendes went as far as to state the arguments were identical, “it is a matter of cut and paste.”
Datadin said that it is true that the matters are of public interest and therefore any member of the public can draw it to the attention of the court.
He said however that it would be an abuse of the court if every citizen were to bring the identical issues against the same public body over and over. Datadin said that that is essentially what has happened in the Davids case “and it is what is happening now.”
Datadin said that while Jones was not a party to the other court cases that addressed the same matters, “the Chief Elections Officer certainly was. He was a party to all the cases. But in Moore he took no active part but was still a party. The determination of the CCJ binds him. But in these proceedings, he offers evidence that he has been instituted to do things not within the law.”
Datadin told the Court that Lowenfield ought not to be allowed to support litigation “brought by public-spirited citizens who are bringing proceedings in the public interest but he is in fact the supporter.”
Datadin noted that without the affidavit presented to the court by Lowenfield, litigants like Eslyn Davids and Jones would have no evidence upon which the court can act.