Section 234: Right of intervention in election petition—The right of a candidate to

234. Right of intervention in election petition—The right of a candidate to be declared a corrective member of Parliament may depend upon what candidates are elected in another constituency. Where the rights of a candidate to be in Parliament depended upon whether A or B was duly elected in another constituency he was allowed to intervene in an electoral petition lodged by A to declare B’s election null. Jagatsingh v Bappoo (1977). 235 Necessity for factually precise pleadings—Electoral petitions were lodged after the general election in 1990. The petitions alleged irregularities surrounding the election including (i) failure by the Electoral Supervisory Commission to supervise the election; (ii) failure by the respondents to comply with section 34 (1) (a) and (c) of the Constitution; (iii) incidents of unfair advantage and favouritism and (iv) incidents of bribery, undue influence and unlawful practice. The respondents sought to have parts of the petitions struck out. HELD persons presenting an electoral petition must be certain as to the averments they make and can prove and which they can reasonably expect the respondents to rebut as promptly as possible. The petitioners, especially by using words such as “and/or” and inter alia in the petitions have shown that they have not been able to produce, within the required time limit any precise facts against the respondents or any other persons. Under sections 45 (1) (a) (ii) and 48 of the Representation of the People Act a petitioner may seek to have an election avoided. That does not however preclude an opponent from seeking to have parts of the petition struck out if they are factually imprecise, disclose no cause of action, or require the respondent to ask for particulars which raise averments which the petitioner did not bring forward within the required time limit. Gutheea v Dulloo (1991).