Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
  • About Us
    • Brief History of the Court
    • Court Overview
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Past Chief Justices
      • Sir Hugh Rawlins
      • Sir Brian George Keith Alleyne
      • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Adrian Saunders
      • Hon. Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron
      • Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac
      • Honourable Sir Lascelles Lister Robotham
      • More..
        • Hon. Neville Algernon Berridge
        • Sir Neville Peterkin
        • Sir Maurice Herbert Davis
        • Justice P. Cecil Lewis
        • Sir Allen Montgomery Lewis
    • Judicial Officers
      • Justices of Appeal
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Davidson Kelvin Baptiste
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Mario Michel
        • Her Ladyship, the Hon. Justice Gertel Thom
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Paul Anthony Webster [Ag.]
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Gerard Farara, KC
        • His Lordship, the Hon. Justice Trevor Ward, KC
      • High Court Judges
      • Masters
    • Court of Appeal Registry
    • Court Connected Mediation
      • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Mediation Publications
    • More…
      • Career Opportunities
      • Legal Internship
      • Transcript Requests
      • Directory
  • Judgments
    • Privy Council
    • Caribbean Court of Justice
    • Court Of Appeal Judgments
    • High Court Judgments
    • Digests of Decisions
    • Country
      • Anguilla
      • Antigua & Barbuda
      • Grenada
      • Montserrat
      • Saint Kitts and Nevis
      • Saint lucia
      • Saint Vincent & The Grenadines
      • Territory of the Virgin Islands
    • Year
      • 1972 – 1990
        • 1972
        • 1973
        • 1975
        • 1987
        • 1989
        • 1990
      • 1991 – 2000
        • 1991
        • 1992
        • 1993
        • 1994
        • 1995
        • 1996
        • 1997
        • 1998
        • 1999
        • 2000
      • 2001 – 2010
        • 2001
        • 2002
        • 2003
        • 2004
        • 2005
        • 2006
        • 2007
        • 2008
        • 2009
        • 2010
      • 2011 – 2019
        • 2011
        • 2012
        • 2013
        • 2014
        • 2015
        • 2016
        • 2017
        • 2018
        • 2019
    • Judgment Focus
  • Sittings & Notices
    • Schedule of Sittings
    • Court of Appeal Sittings
    • Chamber Hearing (Appeals)
    • Case Management (Appeals)
    • High Court Sittings
    • Status Hearings
    • Special Sittings
    • Notices
  • Court Procedures & Rules
    • ECSC Court of Appeal Rules
    • ECSC (Sittings of the Court) Rules, 2014
    • Civil Procedure Rules [WEB]
    • ECSC Civil Procedure Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to Nov 2015]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014
      • ECSC Civil Procedure (Amendment) (No.2) Rules
      • Civil Procedure Rules 2000 [Amendments to May 2014]
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013
      • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2011
    • ECSC Criminal Procedure Rules
      • Criminal Procedure Rules SI No. 22 of 2015
    • ECSC Sentencing Guidelines
    • Non Contentious Probate Rules and Administration of Estates
    • Family Proceedings Rules
    • More..
      • Election Petition Rules
      • Legal Profession Disciplinary Procedure Rules (St. Lucia)
      • Code Of Judicial Conduct
      • Court Forms
        • Introduction of E-Filing
        • BVI Commercial Division E-Filing
        • Court-Connected Mediation Practice Direction Forms
      • Court Proceedings Fees
      • SILK Application Procedure
      • Practice Directions
      • Practice Notes
      • Video Conferencing Protocols
  • News & Publications
    • ECSC Media Gallery
    • Annual Reports
    • Appointments
    • Press Releases
    • Papers & Presentation
      • Opening of the Law Year Addresses
    • Tributes
  • E-Litigation
    • E-Litigation Portal
    • E-Litigation Instructional Videos
    • ECSC E-Litigation Portal User Information
    • Electronic Litigation Filing and Service Procedure Rules
    • Notices of Commencement
    • E-Litigation Publications
    • Training Site
  • J.E.I
    • JEI History
    • Structure of JEI
    • JEI Chairman
    • Mandate, Objectives, Standards
    • Programmes Archive
      • Conferences
      • Programmes & Projects
      • Symposiums
      • Training
      • Workshops
    • Upcoming Activities
more
    • About Us
    • Meet the Chief Justice
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Mediation
    • Careers
  • Contact
  • Saved for Later
 Home  E-Litigation Portal
  •  Court Procedures And Rules
    • Civil Procedure Rules
    • Court Forms
    • Election Petition Rules
    • Practice Directions
  •  Judgments
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
    •  Digest of Decisions
  •  Sittings
    •  All
    •  Court of Appeal
    •  High Court
  • Sign In
    
    Minimize Search Window
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Category {{SelectedFilters.length}}x Categories 
    •       {{item.title}} {{selectedCountries.length}}x Countries Country 
    •       {{item.title}} Filter By Year {{selectedOptions.length}}x Options 
    
    Sorry can't find what you're looking for try adjusting your search terms
    Appeal
    {{doc._source.post_title}}
    Page {{indexVM.page}} of {{indexVM.pageCount}}
    pdf
    Home » Judgments » High Court Judgments » ANGUS DENNIE v THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    1
    SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
    CIVIL SUIT NO. 196 OF 1995
    BETWEEN:
    ANGUS DENNIE Plaintiff
    V.
    THE CHAIRMAN AND
    MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
    SERVICE COMMISSION
    KENNETH R. V. JOHN
    FRANK WILLIAMS
    MIKEY DEFREITAS
    GEORGE PHILLIPS Defendants
    Appearances:
    Miss Nicole Sylvester for the Plaintiff
    Miss Dawn Lewis, Crown Counsel for the defendants
    ———————————————–
    1999: November 29
    2000: April 4, 10, 11
    DELIVERED: 2000: June 19
    ————————————————–
    JUDGMENT
    [1] ADAMS, J: By a letter dated May 21st 1986 the Plaintiff was
    appointed to the post of Fisheries Extension Assistant, Fisheries
    Division, Ministry of Trade Industry and Agriculture on 1 year’s
    probation with effect from the 1st March 1986.
    2
    [2] By letter dated 2nd September 1994 he was retired by the Public
    Service Commission in the public interest.
    [3] This action has been brought because the Plaintiff insists that the
    purported retirement of him by the Public Service Commission is
    penal, unlawful, illegal and of no effect.
    [4] As a consequence of all this the Plaintiff has sued the Public
    Service Commission and its members, and claims the following
    remedies.
    [5] “(a) A declaration that the proceedings of the Public Service
    Commission were vitiated by breaches of natural justice.
    (b) A declaration that the purported retirement of the Plaintiff
    in the public interest is unlawful, ineffective and void.
    © An order reinstating the Plaintiff to his job and to pay the
    Plaintiff his monthly salary of $1451.00 and emoluments
    now due as of August 1993 and continuing until reinstatement.
    (d) A declaration that the letter dated 2nd September 1994
    purporting to retire the Plaintiff in the public interest is an
    assertion that the Plaintiff is still a public officer in the
    service of the Government of St. Vincent and the
    Grenadines and that the suspension of the payment of
    the Plaintiffs salary from August 1993 was wrongful,
    unlawful and a nullity.
    3
    (e) Further, a declaration that the retiring of the
    Plaintiff as a public officer in the public interest is
    punitive and/or penal and/or disciplinary and was not
    invoked in accordance with any law and or civil
    service regulations and is a nullity.
    (f) Damages
    (g) Further and alternatively the Plaintiff be returned
    to office.
    (h) Such further orders or declarations as the Court
    deems fit.
    (i) Costs
    (j) Further or other relief”.
    [6] It goes without saying, that employed as he was with the
    Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the removal from
    office of the Plaintiff by whatever means required the compliance
    with the law dealing with such matters. In this case Counsel have
    so submitted and I accept that the retirement from the post of the
    Plaintiff was to be governed by a procedure laid down by the
    legislative authority of this State of St. Vincent and the Grenadines;
    I must now identify what legislation there is dealing with this issue.
    [7] It was accepted by Counsel on both sides and by the Court that the
    primary consequence of the letter of appointment of the Plaintiff
    dated 21st May 1986, was that he became what is known as a
    “public officer” and in that capacity became subject to the body
    4
    known as the Public Service Commission, set up by Section 77 of
    the Constitution. By Section 78 of the Constitution of St. Vincent
    and the Grenadines it is provided that the power “to appoint
    persons to hold or act in offices in the Public Service (including the
    power to confirm appointments) and subject to the provisions of
    Section 87 of the Constitution the power to exercise disciplinary
    control over persons holding or acting in such offices and the power
    to remove such persons from office shall vest in the Public Service
    Commission.”
    [8] The retirement in the public interest of a public officer is provided
    for in Regulation 37 of Public Service Commission Regulations and
    reads as follows:
    37. Retirement in the public interest
    “(1) Where it is represented to the Commission, or the
    Commission considers it desirable in the public interest,
    that an officer ought to be retired in the public interest –
    (a) if the officer has held such pensionable office for less
    than ten years and his record of service indicates his
    inability to discharge his duties efficiently; or
    (b) if the officer has held such pensionable office for ten
    years and over and his retirement is contemplated on
    the ground of his inability to discharge his duties
    efficiently,
    the officer shall be informed of the grounds on which his
    retirement is contemplated and he shall be given an
    opportunity of being heard by the Commission.
    5
    (2) The Commission shall, in respect of any officer to
    whom subregulation (1) (b) applies, obtain a report on
    the work of the officer from his head of department,
    and it may also obtain a report from any other head of
    department under whom the officer has served during
    the previous five years.
    (3) If, after having regard to –
    (a) the conditions of the public service;
    (b) the usefulness of the officer in the public service;
    and
    (c) all the circumstances of his case,
    the Commission, after hearing the officer, is satisfied
    that it is desirable in the public interest to do so, it
    shall require the officer to retire.”
    [9] There is no dispute that the Plaintiff in this case was a public officer
    falling within regulation 37 1 (a) cited above – i.e an officer holding
    “pensionable office for less than ten years” and whose retirement in
    the public interest could be brought about if his record of service
    indicated. “his inability to discharge his duties efficiently”.
    [10] It is important to observe that regulation 37 requires that the Officer
    “be informed of the grounds on which his retirement is
    contemplated” and further that he “be given an opportunity of being
    heard by the Commission”. Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 37
    then draws attention to matters which the Commission must
    consider before it could properly conclude that “it is desirable in the
    public interest” to retire the officer.
    6
    [11] It is important to note that Regulation 37 involves what are
    notoriously known as “the rules of natural justice” which in so far as
    they are applicable to this case would require the Officer to know
    the grounds on which his retirement is being contemplated, and
    provide him with an opportunity of being heard by the Commission
    in relation to that matter. These rules make up what has been
    described as the “courts code of fair procedure” and failure to
    observe them in the decision making process of bodies such as the
    Public Service Commission may lead to the nullification of their
    decisions.
    [12] It is the Plaintiff’s contention in this case that there was an
    infringement of the rules of natural justice, the particulars of which
    infringement are as set out in his statement of claim, and
    reproduced earlier in this Judgment.
    [13] This is the point at which I had better advert to the allegation being
    made by the Plaintiff, related as it is to the grounds on which the
    Commission was seeking to retire him in the public interest.
    [14] In substance he accuses the Commission of taking into account
    grounds other than those stipulated by the defendants in their
    “retirement” letter to him of May 20, 1994 and also of having sent a
    written notice to him requiring his presence at a meeting with the
    Medical Board, that was inadequate.
    [15] The grounds are to be found in the letter of 20th May which reads
    as follows:
    “Dear Mr. Dennie,
    7
    Pursuant to Regulation 37 of the Public Service Commission
    Regulations, Booklet 4, Chapter 2 of the Revised Laws 1990 your
    retirement in the public interest is contemplated on the following
    grounds:
    I You have been absent from office on sick leave from
    16th April, 1999 to present date.
    Ii You were absent from work without leave from the
    period 8th July, 1993 to 20th August, 1993, a total of
    44 calendar days.
    Iii No medical certificate has been submitted for the
    period 8th July, 1993 to 20th August, 1993, a total of
    44 calendar days.
    Iv A memo dated 8th November, 1993 was sent to you
    informing you of the appointed date for your
    appearance before the Medical Board to assess your
    fitness to continue in the Government Service.
    (Chapter vi, Section 6.28 of the Civil Service Orders).
    V When you attended at the said Board on the 12th
    November, 1993 you informed them that you were
    advised by your lawyers not to participate in the
    activities of the Board. Accordingly, the Medical
    Board was unable to make any recommendations.
    Your case has been referred to the Public Service
    Commission which will afford you an opportunity to be
    heard in your defence. You are therefore invited to an
    8
    interview at Service Commissions Department on 14th
    June, 1994 and at 2:30 pm.
    Yours sincerely,
    H.P. Griffith (Mrs)
    Chief Personnel Officer
    [16] The question must now be asked; was there some unfairness
    residing in the process by which the Public Commission arrived at
    its determination that the Plaintiff be retired in the public interest?
    [17] The acknowledgement of the need for adherence to the rules of
    natural justice seems to be deeply imbedded in the jurisprudence
    which our courts have inherited from England. What this case is
    concerned with is the removal of the Plaintiff from office and the
    application of the rules of natural justice thereto. Those rules were
    as early as 1615 being applied in Bagg’s case 1615 11 Co. Rep
    93 (b) where the question was whether a man could be deprived of
    his status of a burgess of Plymouth without being heard. In R. V.
    Gaskin 1799 8 Term Report 209, it was the issue of the dismissal
    of a parish clerk that invoked consideration of the rules, and led to
    the description by Lord Kenyon CJ of the principle audi alteram
    partem as one of the first principles of justice. In the case of R.V.
    Smith 1844 5 PB 614 Lord Denman held that even the personal
    knowledge of the offence was no substitute for hearing the officer;
    9
    his explanation might disprove criminal motives or intent and bring
    forward other facts in the mitigation and in any event delaying to
    hear him would prevent yielding too hastily to first impressions.
    The need for adherence to the rules of natural justice found
    expression in a case where the citizen’s house was ordered to be
    pulled down see Hopkins v. Smethwick 1890 24 QBD at pp 714
    and 715. In Osgood and Nelson 1872 L.R. 5HL 36 objection was
    taken to the way in which the corporation of the City of London had
    removed the Clerk to the Sherriffs Court and Hatherley L.C said.
    “I apprehend my Lords that as has been stated by the
    learned Baron who has delivered in the name of the judges their
    unanimous opinion, the court of Queens Bench has always
    considered that it has been open to that court, as in this case it
    appears to have considered, to consult any court or tribunal or body
    of men who may have a power of this description, a power of
    removing from office, if it should be found such persons have
    disregarded any of the essentials of justice in the course of their
    enquiry before making that removal or if it should be found that in
    the place of reasonable cause those persons have acted obviously
    upon mere individual caprice”. Finally De Vertuil v. Knaggs 1918
    A.C 557 was a case in which the Governor of Trinidad was entitled
    to remove immigrants from an estate “on sufficient ground shown to
    his satisfaction.” In the course of his judgment Lord Parmoor had
    this to say.
    “the acting Governor was not called upon to give a decision
    on an appeal between parties and it is not suggested that he holds
    the position of a judge or that the appellant is entitled to insist on
    the forms used in ordinary judicial procedure …….” but he had
    10
    “a duty of giving to any person against whom the complaint
    is made a fair opportunity to make any relevant statement which he
    may desire to bring forward and a fair opportunity to correct or
    controvert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice.”
    [18] It is against the background of the principles expressed in cases
    such as those cited above that counsel for the Plaintiff seeks
    redress from this Court, contending as she did in her written
    submissions that the Commission went beyond the boundary of its
    jurisdiction in the following respects. Firstly, she submitted that “
    the letter of 2nd September 1994 which purportedly retired the
    Plaintiff in the public interest clearly indicated that the Public
    Service Commission treated the contemplated grounds as
    questions” and that being the case the Public Service Commission
    were not entitled to go outside of those five grounds and when the
    Public Service Commission purported to put other grounds or
    questions to the Plaintiff (as is admitted by paragraph (2) of the said
    letter of 2nd` September) they were acting outside the scope of their
    authority and without jurisdiction and the Plaintiff was under no
    obligation to answer any other grounds than those specified in the
    letter of 20th May 1994. Whatever possible merit this submission of
    counsel may have would in my view depend to some extent on the
    factual findings of this court.
    [19] In that regard evidence emerges from the Plaintiff himself, from the
    letter of 2nd September 1994 seeking his retirement, from Shirley
    Francis who was present at the meeting of the Commission when
    the decision to retire the Plaintiff was taken, and from Dr. Kenneth
    John an Attorney-at-Law sitting as Chairman of the Commission.
    11
    [20] The Plaintiff himself alleged that he was asked at the meeting with
    the Commission about his relationship with his boss Mr. Kerwyn
    Morris, and about his failure to attend the meeting with the Medical
    Board. He later went on to say he was asked further questions
    relating to the five grounds specified in the letter of 2nd May; he also
    testified that apart from the five grounds, they asked him “about
    other matters”. He did not say what those matters were but
    subsequently swore that the Commission asked him “questions that
    were not relevant” and also that “some of the questions did not deal
    with any of the grounds of my threatened retirement.” He told the
    Commission that the questions outside of the five grounds
    amounted to a breach of his constitutional rights. Support for the
    Plaintiffs assertion that the Commission may have asked questions
    other than those raised by the letter of 2nd May was provided by
    Shirley Francis called as a witness for the defendants, when she
    swore that the minutes of the 14th June suggest that questions
    other than those mentioned in the letter of 2nd May 1994 were put to
    the Plaintiff. She went on to say “Mr. Dennie did not answer any of
    the questions in relation to AD5” i.e. the letter setting out the
    grounds. As to whether he did or not
    there seems to be some conflict between himself and other
    witnesses.
    [21] While I must acknowledge the principle that a tribunal’s decision as
    the cases show, would in some cases he considered void because
    of the taking into account of matters extraneous to a proper
    adjudication upon the matter before it, I am of the view that this is
    not such a case. There is indeed very little evidence as to the
    questions actually asked. But, I accepted without hesitation the
    evidence of Dr. Kenneth John, an Attorney-at-Law who as I have
    said presided as Chairman over the meeting of the Commission
    12
    and swore that “The Plaintiff was asked a few questions which
    arose out of the main five questions. I can see nothing wrong with
    that; everyone knows that the asking of the questions described as
    main may lead to relevant incidental questions, and incidental
    questions to the Plaintiff seem to suggest some answering on his
    part of preceeding questions.
    [22] What is more is the fact that the letter retiring the plaintiff and dated
    2nd September 1994 indicates that the Commission remained within
    the confines of the grounds when it referred to the fact that its
    decision to retire him had been based on “your response to the
    points I-v in my letter of 20th May 1994.”
    [23] In my view bearing in mind that the Commission is required by
    Regulation 37 before making a decision, to take into account
    (a)The conditions of the public service
    (b)The usefulness of the officer in the public service and
    © All the circumstances of his case
    the argument of Counsel for the Plaintiff that the Commission went
    beyond its jurisdiction must fail.
    [24] The other argument put forward by Counsel for the Plaintiff relates
    to a notice sent to her client requiring that he should attend a
    meeting of the Medical Board. That letter was written by the
    Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture dated 8th
    November 1993, and required the attendance of the Plaintiff at
    2.00p.m the next day, ie 9th November, 1993 at the Kingstown
    General Hospital. He was at that time to have an interview with Dr.
    Debnath. The letter also required that he appear “before a formal
    medical board on Friday 12th November 1993 at 10:30 a.m. at the
    13
    Medical Director’s office”. As it turned out another letter dated the
    very 8th November changed the place of attendance for the meeting
    with Dr. Debnath from “Kingstown General Hospital” to the
    “Admission Office General Hospital”. The Plaintiff did not attend
    the meeting with Dr. Debnath – though he did attend the one with
    the Medical Board.
    [25] The complaint by the plaintiff’s Counsel is that the notification given
    by the Permanent Secretary in the letter of the 8th was not enough.
    It seems in my view to have no foundation. In the first place this
    servant of the State was being retired in the public interest and not
    on medical grounds. And in relation to his required attendance on
    the 9th and on the 12th the question naturally comes to mind; what
    length of notice does a man need for the purpose of being
    interviewed by doctors regarding his illness. For what purpose
    does he need time? What case was there to prepare? This
    allegation by the Plaintiff must be dismissed as being without merit.
    [26] It is the view of the court that when the circumstances of the case
    are carefully scrutinized, it would be seen that the Plaintiff brought
    disaster upon his own head, and that in the process of deciding
    what action they should take, the Public Service Commission
    proceeded in accordance with the rules of natural justice to retire
    him in the public interest.
    [27] His admitted absence from work from the 8th July, 1993 to 20th
    August, 1993 (which I found from the facts to be inexcusable)
    without providing any medical certificate was an act of outrageous
    defiance, perhaps by itself justifying the course ultimately taken by
    the Commission.
    14
    [28] In the end therefore, the action brought by the Plaintiff must fail,
    and the orders and declarations sought by him must be refused.
    There shall be no order as to costs.
    Odel Adams
    High Court Judge

    https://www.eccourts.org/angus-dennie-v-the-chairman-and-members-of-the-public-service-commission/
     Prev
    ALFRED JACKSON v DAVID BALCOMBE
    Next 
    EARL MC LEAN et al v PEARL MC LEAN et al
    Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court

    2nd Floor Heraldine Rock Building
    Waterfront
    P.O. Box 1093
    Castries
    Saint Lucia
    T: +1 758 457 3600
    E: offices@eccourts.org

    • About Us
      • Court Overview
      • Career Opportunities
      • Directory
      • Privacy Policy
    • Judgments
      • Court Of Appeal
      • High Court
    • Sittings
      • Chamber Hearing
      • Court of Appeal
      • High Court
    • News & Updates
      • Appointments
      • Press Releases
    • Civil Procedure Rules
      • Court Forms
      • Practice Directions
    © 2023 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. All Rights Reserved

    Submit your email address and name to subscribe for email notifcations.

    [email-subscribers-advanced-form id="1"]
    Bookmark
    Remove Item
    Sign in to continue
    or

    Bookmarked Items
    •  Home
    • Judgments
    • Sittings
    •  News
    •  more