Short answer. It must name the person claiming entitlement to the office, aver that person's right to it, and allege that the respondent is unlawfully in possession; all persons who claim entitlement to the office may be joined as parties, with their respective rights determined in the same action.

What the law says

When the action is against a person for usurping a public office, position or franchise, the petition shall set forth the name of the person who claims to be entitled thereto, if any, with an averment of his right to the same and that the respondent is unlawfully in possession thereof. All persons who claim to be entitled to the public office, position or franchise may be made parties, and their respective rights to such public office, position or franchise determined, in the same action.

Rule 66, Section 6 — Parties and contents of petition against usurpation. Read the full provision →

Naming the claimant and the right asserted

In an action against someone accused of usurping a public office, position, or franchise, the petition must identify the person who claims to be entitled to it, if there is one, along with an averment of that person's right to the office and an allegation that the respondent is unlawfully in possession of it. Naming the claimant and describing the basis for the claim up front lets the court and the respondent understand from the outset exactly what is being contested and by whom. Without these specifics, the respondent would be left to guess at the precise basis of the challenge to their occupancy of the office.

More than one claimant is allowed

The rule does not restrict the action to a single rival claimant. All persons who claim to be entitled to the office, position, or franchise in question may be made parties to the same action, so multiple competing claims can be litigated together rather than through separate lawsuits. This is particularly useful where several people each believe they have a valid claim to the same office and none of them wants to wait for a series of sequential cases to sort it out. This joinder provision anticipates that public offices sometimes attract several rival claimants at once, each with a colorable basis for asserting entitlement.

One action, all rights resolved

Joining every claimant in a single action lets the court determine each person's respective rights to the office in that one proceeding. This avoids inconsistent rulings from separate cases and gives a definitive answer, in one judgment, as to who among the competing claimants is actually entitled to hold the office, position, or franchise once the usurper has been removed from it.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.