On Monday, a High Court judge will decide if an election petition filed by the losing candidate in the Arima Northeast district should be thrown out.

On Monday, Chief Elections Officer Fern Narcis-Scope filed a motion to dismiss the petition because it was not served on the seat's winner, Kim Garcia.

On Tuesday, Justice Frank Seepersad ordered the filing of submissions on the EBC's motion and said he would give his decision on September 18.

'This point will revolve around the interpretation of the act and the rules,' he said.

In the application, the CEO said the election rules and the Representation of the People (ROP) Act required the petition to be served on the person whose election was complained of and it was not.

'The settled law is that the ROP Act and the election proceedings rules provide a comprehensive and exclusive statutory scheme with mandatory procedural rules for challenging the validity of an election or the return of a candidate as the elected representative in an election.

'Time limits set in election legislation are to be strictly adhered to and adherence is regarded as a prerequisite to the advancement of a petition.

'Representation petitions must therefore be brought strictly in accordance with the requirements of the statute.

'Failing this, a petition is a nullity and will be dismissed or struck out.'

The motion said the petitioner, Jairzinho Domingo Gustav Rigsby, who was the UNC's candidate in the August 14 local government election, did not serve Garcia with notice of the petition nor was she named as a respondent as required by section 110 of the act and rule 8(1) of the election rules.

The EBC contends that the petition, filed on September 1, should have been served on Garcia on or before September 7, within five days of the presentation of the challenge.

Garcia was the PNM's candidate.

'Having regard to the nature of the petition and the relief which it seeks which concerns not only the petitioner and the respondents but the electorate of the electoral district of Arima Northeast, it is in the public interest and consistent with the overriding objective for the respondents' motion to dismiss the petition.

Rigbsy's attorney, Dinesh Rambally, insisted that non-service of the petition on Garcia did not nullify it.

He expressed concern that the EBC did not, on September 5 when the matter was first called, raise the issue.

He said it was not Garcia's conduct which was being complained of but that of the chief election officer and the returning officer who are the named defendants in the petition.

However, the EBC's lead attorney, Deborah Peake, SC, said the petitioner has accepted that the candidate who won the election was not served, then it was clear that the petition should be struck out.

She also said section 107(2) of the act was 'pretty clear' as it requires the service of the petition on the person whose election is complained of.

The Arima Northeast election petition is the second challenge to the results brought by the Opposition UNC; the o