Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v AG
 SGCA 39
On 3 April 2012, leave was granted by the Judge to apply for themandatory order.
The next day, 4 April 2012, the Attorney-General filed a Notice of Appeal against the leave given by the Judge.
On 9 May 2012, the President, upon the advice of the Prime Minister,issued a writ of election for Hougang SMC (“the Writ of Election”).Following this development, the Appellant wrote to the Attorney-Generalstating that “as the factual objective of her litigation has now been achieved timeously, she is prepared to withdraw her application in OS 196”.
On 16 May 2012, the Attorney-General withdrew his appeal againstthe decision granting leave to the Appellant in OS 196/2012. The by-electionwas duly held on 26 May 2012 and the candidate for the Workers’ Party wasreturned to the seat for Hougang SMC. However, on 29 May 2012 theAppellant nevertheless proceeded to file Summons No 2639 of 2012 seekingthe same mandatory order and declaration.
Following the dismissal on 5 July2012 of certain interlocutory applications brought by both parties, oralarguments from both parties on the substantive merits were heard on 16 July2012. We should add that at the latter hearing counsel for the Appellantinformed the court that the Appellant was abandoning her application for themandatory order (see
Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General
 4SLR 698 (“the Judgment”) at ). On 1 August 2012, the Judge delivered his judgment, dismissing the substantive prayer which the Appellant sought,
Core Bundle Vol 1, Tab 3
Core Bundle Vol 2, Tab 7
Supplementary Core Bundle, Tab 1
Core Bundle Vol 2A, Tab 12