Proceedings held to be abuse of Court’s process

THE Appellant, Steven Edwards, former Deputy Registrar General, Births and Deaths, was

dismissed from the Public Service with effect from September 19, 1981. Seven years later, he sought a declaration from the High Court that he was wrongfully dismissed, and damages.

His action was dismissed as being statute-barred. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, was allowed and the matter remitted to the High Court to be heard de novo.  The High Court again held that the action was barred by laches and dismissed it.

A second appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed. On August 8, 2001 the Appellant filed a constitutional motion in the High Court seeking a declaration that he had been compulsorily retired and the enforcement of his right to money due to him as salary and superannuation benefits. The motion was dismissed on  the ground  that the Appellant having waited 20 years to bring the action, and offering no explanation for the delay, was guilty of  negligence  or unreasonable delay in seeking  to assert  or enforce  a right  and that the motion was an abuse  of the process .of the Court .

On appeal.Held: (i)   The Court found no basis for interfering with the finding of the trial judge that the institution of proceedings 20 years after that compulsory retirement constituted unreasonable and an attempt to abuse the processes of the Court.(ii)   The  doctrine of  res judicata did not apply to the Appellant’s claim because,  unlike the first claim which  was  for damages for wrongful dismissal,  the present claim  was for the enforcement of property  rights under  article 142  of the Constitution.

Appeal dismissed.   Benjamin Gibson for the Appellant. Doodnauth Singh, S.C. Attorney General for the Respondents. Chang, J. A. delivered the judgment of the Court. He said: On the 22nd March 2007, the Court orally dismissed this appeal. On the 27th April, on application, the appellant obtained the leave of this Court to appeal its decision to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).  The decision of the Court delivered orally on the 22nd March 2007 is now put in writing. In March  1980, the Appellant, while holding the  public office of Deputy Registrar-General, Births and Deaths was criminally charged  with the  summary offence of Corrupt transaction by agent , contrary to section 105 (2)  (a) of the Summary  Jurisdiction (Offences) Act, Chapter 8:02.

However, that charge was dismissed on the 20th January 1981. In September 1981, the Appellant received a letter dismissing him from the Public Service with effect from the 19th September 1981. On the 7th July 1988, seven years later, in an action by Writ of Summons, the Appellant sought from the High Court a declaration that he was wrongfully dismissed and damages. The High Court held that his action was statue-barred and dismissed it. However, on appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the Appellant’s appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court to be heard denovo. After the matter was remitted to the High Court, the Respondents in that action (who are the same Respondents in this appeal) was granted leave to file an amended defence to include laches, acquiescence and delay by the Appellant. On the 6th December 1996, the High Court presided over by Justice Burch-Smith upheld the Respondent’s submission that the Appellant’s action was barred by laches and dismissed it.

For the second time, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.  But, on that second appeal, the Appellant failed and his appeal was dismissed. On the 8th August 2001, the Appellant filed a Constitutional Motion to the High Court in which he sought the following reliefs:

“(a)  A  declaration that he was compulsory retired from the Public Service on the 19th day of November  1980.

(b)  An Order directing the payment to him of the sum of $200, 289.00.

(c)   An order directing the payment to him by way of superannuation as ex parte payment and pension.

(d)  Costs.It is instructive to note that in his Motion, the Appellant was not claiming damages for wrongful dismissal but rather a declaration that he was compulsory retired and the enforcement of his right to money due to him as salary and superannuation benefits.
The trial judge, in dismissing the Appellant’s Motion stated: ‘’ I agree with the submission that this Motion is now an abuse of the process of the Court, which the High Court has an inherent jurisdiction to prevent.  No explanation for this delay has been offered by the Appellant by way of affidavit or otherwise.”

This Court is unable to interfere with the finding of fact made by the trial judge that, in filing his Motion 20 years after his alleged compulsory retirement from the Public Service, the Appellant was guilty of unreasonable delay in asserting or seeking to enforce his claim to property rights in Court.  As such, this Court cannot set aside the decision of the trial judge to dismiss the Appellant’s Motion for abuse of process on the ground of undue delay.

This Court, however, refrains from expressing any agreement with the trial judge that the doctrine of res judicata had application since the Appellant’s claim, unlike his claim in the first action, was not for damages for wrongful dismissal in private law but for the enforcement of compulsorily property rights under Article 142 of the constitution. In the earlier action, the Appellant had claimed that he was wrongfully dismissed while, in his later Motion, he assert that he was compulsorily retired by the Commission.

This appeal is accordingly dismissed on the grounds that this Court finds no basis for interfering with the finding of the trial judge that the institution of the proceedings 20 years after compulsory retirement constitutes unreasonable delay and was an attempt to abuse the processes of the Court.