Counsel argued that this Article was held to be inapplicable in as far as the High
Court had jurisdiction to resolve the question of whether a seat fell vacant, and
not the Attorney General. In consideration of the evidence on record, court found
that it was wrong for the Attorney General to declare vacant the seats of the
appellants, since jurisdiction was placed with the High Court for that purpose.
Further, the appellants criticized the Constitutional Court for referring on the
Miscellaneous cause by the appellants in determination of this matter. The Court
however found that no reference was made either by court or counsel on that
Cause. Therefore, the ground failed.
Further, the appellants argued that the court erred in admitting the affidavit of the
President and not allowing them to cross-examine him on the said affidavit. The
court found that it was right for the Constitutional court not to allow cross-
examination of the President as he could give evidence, but could not be
compelled to appear and be cross-examined on that evidence.
Further, the appellants argued that the Constitutional Court misdirected itself
when it held that expulsion from a political part was a ground for one to lose
Parliamentary seat. From the evidence that was adduced, the court found that the
trail court erred in holding that expulsion from a party would lead to losing
parliamentary seat. Thus, this ground of appeal was allowed.
Therefore, the court found that the majority of the Justices erred in as far as they
did not properly evaluate the evidence before court thereby reaching unfair
decision. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed with costs to the appellants.