The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) Friday dismissed an application for special leave by a Guyanese national to appeal in a matter against three state-owned bauxite companies including the Bauxite Industry Development Company Limited (BIDCO).
James Ramsahoye was seeking permission from the CCJ to appeal a decision by the Guyana Court of Appeal in dismissing enforcement orders made by a single Justice of Appeal to pay him damages and a monthly pension from a previous employment judgment awarded in his favour against Linden Mining Enterprises (LME), BIDCO and the National Industrial Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL).
Ramsahoye, who was terminated in 1998, after 26 years of service, took legal action against his former employers, LME and BIDCO.
He was unsuccessful at the High Court, but he appealed the judgment and was awarded damages of US$174, 032.49 and a pension of US$2000.72 monthly.
But while the matter was pending in the Court of Appeal, the assets of BIDCO were transferred to NICIL vestments Limited, another state enterprise.
The CCJ heard that following the judgment, there were multiple proceedings between the parties aimed at either preventing the payment of, or enforcement of, the decision.
This eventually resulted in Justice Roy, a judge in the Court of Appeal, making orders for the enforcement of the judgment.
But those orders were ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeal as they held that a single sitting Justice of Appeal did not have the authority to make orders relating to the enforcement of a judgment.
Ramsahoye then sought special leave to appeal this decision by the Court of Appeal at the CCJ.
In considering whether he should be granted leave, the CCJ reviewed its earlier decisions in relation to the grant of special leave and concluded that those decisions demonstrated that a two-stage test was used to grant leave.
The first stage was to determine the circumstances in which the application for special leave was made and the second was to determine whether there was some special feature of the case for the Court to consider granting special leave.
The CCJ said these special features include; whether there was a serious error of law or a substantial miscarriage of justice; or whether the application has a real prospect of success which would warrant the Court hearing the appeal.
The CCJ found that the correct test to be applied in this case was whether there had been an error of law, or substantial miscarriage of justice, resulting from the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The Trinidad-based Court, which is Guyana’s highest, examined the orders made by the Justice of Appeal, and the scope of the powers granted to him by the Rules of the Court of Appeal and held that the single Justice of Appeal was incorrect in making enforcement orders as this was outside of his legal authority.
In the judgment the CCJ noted “that the learned Justice of Appeal, who no doubt may have been moved by Mr. Ramsahoye’s plight, had no jurisdiction to make those orders”.
In considering whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice, the CCJ noted that they could not grant special leave, although Ramsahoye did have difficulty in receiving the payments.
However, the Court highlighted that there is an appeal before the Court of Appeal in Guyana which would give parties an opportunity to examine the orders requested by Ramsahoye.
As such, the Court dismissed the application for special leave and made no order for costs.
