A novel lawsuit challenging the legality of re-appointing a high court judge who resigned to deliver outstanding judgments has been struck out. In his judgment in a constitutional interpretation case earlier last week, High Court Judge Ricky Rahim ruled that although the Constitution does not contain any explicit provision providing for the procedure, it should be interpreted widely to facilitate it as the practice aids in the proper administration of justice.
“The court has therefore adopted an interpretation of the relevant sections in keeping with a view to generous construction which gives full recognition to the effect of fundamental rights and freedoms set out in the Constitution. “In this regard, it is the finding of the court that a litigant is entitled to the delivery of judgment by the judge who would have presided at trial,” the judgment stated.
Rahim proffered the opinion as he rejected the lawsuit brought by Tunapuna housewife Shirley Sookar, who challenged the Judiciary’s decision to reappoint former High Court Judge David Myers to deliver judgment in her family’s decade-old property dispute.
The judgment is of significant importance as the practice has been employed at least twice since then. Earlier this year, Integrity Commission deputy chairman Sebastian Ventour briefly resigned from his post to deliver his decision in three outstanding cases.
Rahim upheld submissions from the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC), which stated that Sookar’s claim that the drafters of the Constitution precluded the practice was improbable because it had been effectively practiced several times in the past. He disagreed with Sookar’s claim that Myers’ eventual judgment was null and void because he was not bound by a judicial oath when he deliberated on the case and ruled against her.
Describing her contention as speculative and misconceived, Rahim said Myers was bound by the oath at all material times including when he heard evidence in a trial in 2000 and again when he was reinstated in 2011. “There is no evidence as to when Justice Myers may have deliberated on this case. Certainly it is equally possible that he may have deliberated prior to his resignation,” Rahim said.
He also ruled out her claim that her constitutional rights were infringed by Myers’ reappointment as he stated that she would have only been affected if the process was not practiced, forcing her to redo her case before a different judge. “In those circumstances Sookar would no doubt have been entitled to mount a very strong argument that the relevant provisions would have deprived her of judgment and therefore the right of protection of the law,” Rahim said.
While he ruled in favour of Myers reappointment, Rahim described Myers’ decision to resign to practice law in Barbados with 31 of his judgments still outstanding as “highly unsatisfactory and unacceptable.” “It also does not augur well for the administration of justice in that such affairs erodes public confidence in the system of justice to which the nation subscribes and in the judiciary as an independent institution,” Rahim said.
However, Rahim was careful to note that Sookar’s lawsuit, filed before Myers’ brief return, did not challenge the time delay for the decision in her case but only Myers reappointment. Sookar, who has indicated her intention to appeal Rahim’s decision, was ordered to pay the State’s legal costs for defending the claim.
Legal teams
Sookar was represented by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, and Larry Lalla, while British Queen’s Counsel Timothy Straker and local attorneys Kelvin Ramkissoon and Zelica Haynes-Soo Hon represented the office of the Attorney General. The JLSC was represented by Douglas Mendes, SC, and Imran Ali.
About the case
Shirley Sookar’s lengthy legal dispute began in 1999, when her mother-in-law Dolly Sookar and sister-in-law Routi Ramroop sued her husband Meetoolal after he attempted to evict them from a apartment building he owned at Fairley Street, Tunapuna.
The trial began before Justice David Myers in 2000 and was completed in 2002.
While the parties were given several dates for the delivery of the judgment, it was not handed down until Myers returned in July 2011 after resigning three years earlier. At the date of the judgment both Dolly and Meetoolal had already passed away.
Ramroop eventually won the case, with Myers ruling that she was a licensee of the property and was entitled to live there rent free.