Lawsuit: Dismissed ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 8 (Mag. Ct., 2026)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nim

Nim

Member
Change Maker Parliamentarian
Nimq_
Nimq_
Researcher
Joined
Apr 12, 2025
Messages
187
IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA

CIVIL MATTER


BETWEEN:

ComplexKing
Plaintiff — ANP

Kaiserin_
Intervening Party — OSR (Scarlet Flame Alliance)

StonyBrook (Thritystone)
Intervening Party — ANP

Pefum
Intervening Party — ANP

v.

THE CROWN OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Defendant


I. JURISDICTION​

  1. This Court has jurisdiction over this civil matter pursuant to K.A. Const. § III Art. 16, which vests the Magistrates Court with jurisdiction over civil matters.
  2. This matter concerns a settlement agreement regarding candidate eligibility in the May 2026 Parliamentary election. It does not raise a pure constitutional question requiring Chancery's exclusive jurisdiction under K.A. Const. § III Art. 15, as the parties are in agreement and seek only Court approval of their mutually negotiated terms.

II. PARTIES​

  1. ComplexKing — Candidate on the ANP party list for the May 2026 Parliamentary election. Previously disqualified on grounds of insufficient playtime (under 6 hours in the last 30 days under A.P. 018 §17(2)).
  2. Kaiserin_ — Candidate on the OSR party list (Scarlet Flame Alliance) for the May 2026 Parliamentary election. Previously disqualified on the same grounds.
  3. StonyBrook (Thritystone) — Candidate on the ANP party list. Previously disqualified due to passport processing delays by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  4. Pefum — Candidate on the ANP party list. Previously disqualified due to passport processing delays by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  5. The Crown — Represented by the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND​

  1. On May 22, 2026, the Parties entered into a Settlement Agreement (attached as Exhibit A) resolving the dispute arising from ComplexKing v. Crown, Case 2 (Ch. 2026) regarding candidate disqualifications in the May 2026 Parliamentary election.
  2. All Parties have consented to and signed the Settlement Agreement, which provides:
    • (a) A joint petition to the Court to order the Ministry of Internal Affairs to permit all candidates who meet the candidate eligibility requirements under A.P. 018 §17(2) by the end of the voting period to be reinstated as candidates under their respective parties' lists;
    • (b) The Crown agrees to issue Alexandrian passports to the Plaintiffs in a timely manner;
    • (c) The Crown agrees to pay reasonable costs associated with filing the Lawsuit not exceeding £1,000.
  3. No disputed issues of fact or law remain between the Parties. The Court's role is ministerial, to approve a settlement to which all parties consent.

IV. LEGAL BASIS​

  1. A.P. 01-044 | Government Organization Act §21(1) vests the Ministry of Justice with authority to enter into settlement agreements with parties to legal proceedings.
  2. The Court has inherent authority to approve settlements on a joint application when no dispute remains. This is consistent with the constitutional conventions preserved by K.A. Const. § VIII Art. 34, including the legitimate expectation that parties who reach a lawful settlement shall have that settlement recognized by the courts.
  3. The Magistrates Court is the proper and efficient venue for this ministerial approval, as the matter involves applying a mutually agreed settlement to an administrative eligibility determination, not resolving a contested constitutional issue.

V. RELIEF SOUGHT​

The Plaintiffs and Intervening Parties respectfully request that the Court:

  1. Approve the Settlement Agreement attached as Exhibit A;
  2. Order the Ministry of Internal Affairs to permit all candidates who meet the candidate eligibility requirements of A.P. 018 §17(2) by the end of the voting period to be reinstated as candidates in the May 2026 Parliamentary election under their respective parties' lists;
  3. Order the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue Alexandrian passports to the Plaintiffs and Intervening Parties in a timely manner;
  4. Order the Crown to pay the Plaintiff reasonable costs associated with filing the Lawsuit not exceeding £1,000; and
  5. Grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

VI. STATEMENT OF TRUTH​

I believe that the facts stated in this Claim Form and the attached documents are true. I understand the ramifications of violation of such oath.

SIGNED.

Nimq_

This 24th day of May, 2026.


RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE MAGISTRATES COURT FOR REVIEW.
 

Attachments

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

Checking in for the Crown, Your Honor. I recognize we haven't been summoned yet, but the Crown believes a swift response is in order.

The Crown affirms its consent to and support for the settlement agreement. We believe that this agreement is in the mutual interest of all parties.

Enforcing this settlement agreement is within the established authority of the Courts. See Entreaty of Removal for Case 3 (Mag. Ct., 2026) (Ch. 2026), in which the Chancery held that the Court has the authority to modify elections in order to grant relief.

The Crown urges the Court to act as soon as possible, as this is a time-sensitive matter. The voting period for the May 2026 General Election is currently scheduled to end today.

Respectfully submitted,
Capt B. Numbers
Solicitor General
 
MagistrateSeal.png
IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF DISMISSAL​

The court dismisses this case without prejudice.

The Plaintiff in this case has brought a settlement agreement along with their complaint. Besides the settlement agreement however, there appears not to be a case at all. Beyond the submitted settlement agreement, the entire complaint itself also resolves around this settlement agreement, rather than the dispute which led to it. All the facts and arguments given as factual backgrounds and legal basis in the complaint regard the settlement agreement rather than the dispute leading to it. Plaintiff states in their complaint that no disputed issues of fact or law remain between the parties.

In order for this case to have standing, it is either necessary that the Plaintiff shows that they suffered some injury caused by a clear second party or that the Plaintiff challenges a law. See Gen. Rules & Proc. The complaint does not challenge a law and does not allege any injury relating to the settlement agreement or any actions taken due to this settlement agreement. While the complaint explains that the original dispute is about candidate disqualifications in the May 2026 Parliamentary election, this is the entire extent of explanations given with regards to this dispute.

Even if the court assumes that the injury Plaintiff intended to show was the injury from which the dispute arose, rather than an injury relating to the settlement agreement, which their filing is about, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently explain the dispute, fails to clearly show an injury and fails to clearly show how this injury was caused by Defendant’s actions. It is not the duty of the court to make a Plaintiff’s argument for them or to make arguments or logical leaps for the basic components of a suit for them. See Ameslap v. Parliament, Case 12 (Ch. 2025).

Accordingly,
this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

So ordered,
Gribble19.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nim
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top