–Court rules local Appeal Court has jurisdiction to hear case

THE Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on Friday granted the application for special leave in the appeal filed by Vice-President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, ruling that the Court of Appeal of Guyana has jurisdiction to entertain the substantive case concerning former Minister of Communities Annette Ferguson, who was awarded a $20 million default judgement.

The Trinidad-based court found that in Guyana, decisions or judgements made by High Court Judges can be appealed in the Full Court, which is a division of the High Court.

An appeal of the Full Court decision is heard in the Court of Appeal of Guyana. Where two Judges sit in the Full Court, there may be an evenly-divided bench, and the parties must look to legislation to determine the course of any appeals.

Jagdeo, the defendant in libel proceedings filed by Ferguson, sought to set aside a default judgement entered against him. In addition to the $20 million default judgement, Ferguson was also awarded costs in the sum of $75,000.

After an unsuccessful attempt to appeal to the Full Court, where two judges resulted in an evenly-divided bench, Jagdeo applied for a recall of the divided judgement.

However, the Full Court rejected this application. Subsequently, he sought permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal the effect of the divided Full Court judgement.

The Court of Appeal initially held that it lacked the power to grant leave, since the Full Court had not delivered an appealable decision. Dr. Jagdeo then sought permission to appeal to the CCJ, questioning his entitlement to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

He also requested a stay on the assessment of damages pending before the High Court.

In a judgement delivered by Justice Anderson, with Justice Burgess concurring, the CCJ clarified that when there is an evenly-divided Full Court, the appeal to the Full Court is dismissed, and the original High Court decision stands.

This decision is subject to the appeal’s regime outlined in the Court of Appeal Act. The CCJ pointed out that a contrary interpretation would undermine the judicial review process, and go against the High Court Act’s wording and objective.

The CCJ compared this case from a previous decision in Guyana Sugar Corporation v Seegobin, where an attempt to appeal against the decision of one of two judges in a divided Full Court was unsuccessful.

Justice Barrow authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that if the Full Court is evenly divided, the applicant should go no further, aligning with the legislation’s contemplation.

Taking into account the opinions expressed, the CCJ ordered the following: The application for special leave be treated as the substantive appeal, the decision of the Court of Appeal stating it has no jurisdiction to grant leave be reversed, the case be remitted to the Court of Appeal for consideration of granting leave, and the hearing for assessment of damages against Jagdeo be stayed pending further determination.