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
  • 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 » Digests of Decisions » March 26-30, 2007

    Court of Appeal Sitting
    Grenada
    Monday, 26th March to Friday, 30th March, 2007
    Coram: His Lordship, the Hon Mr. Michael Gordon, QC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Denys Barrow, SC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Hugh A. Rawlins – Justice of Appeal
    Judgment Delivered
    Nelson Lewis et al v dirk Burkhardt et al
    Civ. App. No.7 of 2006
    Law of Real Property-Constituents of a Valid Contract-Notice to Quit
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Dickon Mitchell
    Respondent: Mrs. Celia Edwards
    Issues: Whether the finding of the Judge that there was a completed contract between the parties
    can be supported by the facts and in law.
    Result: 28th March, 2007
    Appeal dismissed. Prescribed costs to the Respondent.
    Reason: Not only was there a contract in existence between the appellants and the respondents in
    December 2002 but there is before the Court a sufficient memorandum in writing signed
    by the appellants and on their behalf setting out the terms of that agreement.
    26th March, 2007
    Motions/Applications
    Joseph J. Morrel v Godwin Bibby
    Civ. App. No.13 of 2006
    Civil Practice & Procedure – Stay of Execution
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Anselm Clouden
    Respondent: Mr. George Prime
    Issues: 1. Whether there was compliance with the Order of Alleyne J. as is evidenced by
    the signed conveyance and Deed of Indemnity.
    2. Whether the Respondent is guilty of non-compliance with the Order.
    3. Whether it is inequitable for the Respondent to seek enforcement of the Order. Coram: His Lordship, the Hon Mr.Michael Gordon, QC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Denys Barrow, SC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Hugh A. Rawlins – Justice of Appeal
    Result: 27th March, 2007
    Traversed to next sitting at request of both parties in order to achieve settlement.
    Gordon Renwick v Margaret Blackburn
    Civ. App. No.19 of 2006
    Civil Practice & Procedure-Stay of Execution
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Ms. Sheila Harris holding for Mr. Leslie Haynes QC instructed by Grant Joseph & Co.
    Respondent: Mr. Gregory Delsin instructed by Renwick & Payne
    Issues 1. Whether all further proceedings in this matter should be stayed pending the
    appeal of the Judgment of Hon. Justice Davidson Baptiste.
    2. Whether the Trial Judge erred in holding that the factual matrix was such as to
    justify the imposition of equitable considerations on the exercise of the powers of
    management under the Articles and By Laws so as to allow the Respondent’s
    participation in the Company’s management during the lifetime of the Appellant.
    3. Whether the Trial Judge gave undue weight to the fact that the shareholders of
    the Company were also partners of Renwick & Payne.
    4. Whether the Trial Judge erred in construing the Articles and By-Laws in finding
    that the Company was so structured that the Respondent was assured of her
    participation in the management of the Company during the lifetime of the
    Appellant.
    5. Whether the Trial Judge erred in holding that there was justifiable lack of
    confidence in the conduct and management of the Company’s affairs as he failed
    to consider properly or at all that the acts complained of by the Respondent were
    matters of policy, disagreement with which is not sufficient to invoke the “just and
    equitable rule”.
    6. Whether the Trial Judge erred in failing to find that the Respondent could not
    complain of a deadlock when such deadlock was caused by her refusing to
    attend the meeting called by the Appellant.
    7. Whether the Trial Judge erred in failing to find that the Court could remove a
    deadlock by exercising its powers under Section 132 of the Companies Act.
    8. Whether the Trial Judge failed to establish a methodology for the valuation of the
    shares and to set the conditions for the buy-out including a time frame for a buyout and an order for winding up if the said time frame is not met.
    Coram: His Lordship, the Hon Mr.Michael Gordon, QC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Denys Barrow, SC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Hugh A. Rawlins – Justice of Appeal
    Result: 26th March, 2007
    Court advises Counsel to draft an undertaking to be submitted to the Court with a consent order to be incorporated.
    By Consent And Upon the Respondent undertaking not to:- (i) borrow in the name of
    the said Equity Holding Inc.; (ii) sell, lease, mortgage or otherwise dispose of the assets
    of the said Equity Holding Inc.; pending the determination of the appeal; The application
    for a stay of execution is withdrawn.
    No Order as to Costs
    Attorney General of Grenada v Peter Charles David et al
    Civ. App. No.34 of 2006
    Civil Practice & Procedure-Extension of Time to Appeal
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Roand Henriques QC and Mr. Hugh Wildman
    Respondent: Dr. Francis Alexis, Mr. Anselm Clouden and Mr. Ruggles Ferguson
    Issues: 1. Whether the Claimant’s time for appealing against the Judgment of Justice
    Kenneth Benjamin given on the 12th day of September 2006 should be extended.
    2. Whether the Judge erred in law in finding that a challenge to the qualification of a
    member of the House of Representatives under Section 37 (1) (b) of the
    Constitution could only be brought by means of an Election Petition under
    Section 97 (2) of the Representation of the Peoples Act of 1993.
    3. Whether the Judge erred in finding that the provisions of Section 97(2) of the
    RPA 1993 in effect “repealed” the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) of the
    Constitution and whether in so finding he failed to give any or any adequate
    consideration to the entrenched provision contained in Section 31(1)(a) of the
    Constitution.
    4. Whether the Judge erred in law in holding that Section 97 of the RPA of 1993
    created a narrower “election petition jurisdiction” that entirely usurped the
    “election jurisdiction” of Section 37 of the Constitution in respect of questions as
    to the membership of the House of Representatives.
    5. Whether the Judge erred in law in placing reliance on the cases of Peters v AG
    [2002] 2 LRC 32 and Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30, as neither case was
    determinative of the issue before him.
    6. Whether the Judge erred in law in finding that it “mattered nor” to the question of
    his jurisdiction that the relevant period for the bringing of an Election Petition had
    passed and that the relevant information did not surface until after the expiry of
    that period.
    7. Whether the Judge erred in law in placing weight upon the fact that no authority
    had been cited “to advance and support” the proposition that a challenge to the
    validity of the membership of a member of the House of Representatives can be
    brought outside of the procedures prescribed by Section 97 of the RPA of 1993.
    8. Whether the Judge erred in law in finding that the provisions of Section 97-100 of
    the RPA 1993 operated to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under
    Section 37(1) (b) of the Constitution once the statutory period for invoking
    Section 97 of the RPA of 1993 had passed.
    9. Whether the Judge erred in law in holding that the issue before him could onlyhave been raised by way of Election Petition, rather than under the Rules of
    court as a constitutional issue as to the interpretation of S. 31(1)(a) of the
    Constitution.
    Coram: His Lordship, the Hon Mr.Michael Gordon, QC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Denys Barrow, SC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Hugh A. Rawlins – Justice of Appeal
    Result: 27th March, 2007
    Judgment Reserved.
    Grenada Development Bank v BNP Entertainment Limited et al
    Civ. App. No.4 of 2006
    Civil Practice & Procedure-Permission to amend Notice of Appeal
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Gregory Delsin
    Respondent: For 3rd Respondent Mr. Henry Paryag
    Issues: 1. Whether the Applicant can be granted permission to amend the Notice of Appeal
    filed in this appeal in terms of the Amended Notice of Appeal filed 16th January
    2007 in this appeal.
    2. Whether the Amended Notice of Appeal filed 16th January 2007 in this appeal
    can be deemed properly filed.
    3. Application that the Firm of Henry, Henry & Bristol be removed from the record
    as acting for the Third Respondent.
    4. Application for adjournment.
    No objection to application to file amended Notice of Appeal.
    Coram His Lordship, the Hon Mr.Michael Gordon, QC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Denys Barrow, SC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Hugh A. Rawlins – Justice of Appeal
    Result: 27th March, 2007
    Matter traversed to next sitting.
    The 3rd Respondent to file and serve skeleton arguments on or before the 27th April 2007.
    Response to be filed and served within 14 days thereafter.
    Hugh Wildman v The Judicial and Legal Services Commission
    Civ. App. No.9 of 2006
    Civil Practice & Procedure-Conditional Leave to Appeal to Her Majesty-in-Council
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Roand Henriques QC
    Respondent: Mr. James Bristol
    Issue: Whether the Appellant should be granted conditional leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council from the judgment of the Court of appeal given on the 1st day of March 2007 and
    upon such conditions as security as may be deemed just.
    Coram: His Lordship, the Hon Mr.Michael Gordon, QC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Denys Barrow, SC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Hugh A. Rawlins – Justice of Appeal
    Result: 26th March, 2007
    Conditional Leave to appeal is refused. Appellant will have to seek leave directly to the
    Privy Council.
    Reason: 1. The right to a fair hearing is not a right to which any value can be ascribed.
    2. Court not satisfied that any matters which involve a serious issue of law, a
    constitutional provision that has not been settled, an area of law in dispute or a
    legal question, the resolution of which imposes dire consequences on the public
    is involved. In the circumstances the Applicant will have to seek special leave
    from the Privy Council.
    High Court Criminal Appeal Against Sentence
    Kelvin Taylor v The Queen
    Crim. App. No.5 of 2005
    Criminal Law-Rape-Sentence
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Arley Gill
    Respondent: Mr. Christopher Nelson
    Issue: Whether the sentence is excessive in law.
    Notice of intention to apply for leave to withdraw filed.
    Coram: His Lordship, the Hon Mr.Michael Gordon, QC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Denys Barrow, SC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Hugh A. Rawlins – Justice of Appeal
    Result: 26th March, 2007
    Application to withdraw granted. Appeal stands dismissed.
    High Court Criminal Appeals Against Conviction
    Elvon Barry v The Queen
    Crim. App. No. 5 of 2004
    Criminal Law-Murder-Judges’ Rules-Joint Enterprise
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Anselm Clouden Respondent: Mr. Christopher Nelson
    Issues: 1. Whether the caution statement of Appellant was wrongly admitted by the Judge.
    2. Whether the statement was taken in breach of the Judges rules.
    3. Whether there was unfairness in the summing up.
    4. Whether the Judge having admitted the Appellant’s statement was obliged to
    give a Lucas Direction having regard to the contents of the Appellant’s defence
    as contained in his un-sworn statement from the dock and the first statement that
    Sgt. Hall said he took from him where he denied everything.
    5. Whether the Judge gave an inadequate direction on the issue of Joint Enterprise.
    Result: 26th March, 2007
    Judgment Reserved
    Zoyd Clement v The Queen
    Crim. App. No.9 of 2004
    Criminal Law-Murder-Conviction
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Dr. Francis Alexis
    Respondent: Mr. Christopher Nelson
    Issues: 1. Whether the submission of no case to answer made by the Appellant to the
    Judge should have been upheld.
    2. Whether the conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory within the meaning of
    Section 41(1) CAP. 336 1990 revised Laws of Grenada because there was no
    evidence that the Appellant knew that the 3rd appellant had a gun so that the
    appellant could have intended or contemplated or envisaged the use of the gun
    by Phillip, and so Clement could not have authorized the use of the gun by
    Phillip.
    3. Whether the Judge failed to put to the Jury accurately or fairly Clement’s defence
    that he had no knowledge of a gun and that he had no time to disengage or
    withdraw. Whether this non-direction was a mis-direction.
    4. Whether the non-directions and mis-directions constitute material irregularities in
    the course of the trial within the meaning of Section 41(1) Supreme Court Act,
    CAP. 336, 1990 Revised Laws, Grenada
    5. Whether the Judge’s direction to the jury that if they felt that the shooting was an
    accident, Phillip “must be acquitted, that is the end of the case…you must find
    each and every one of the accused not guilty” was a misdirection.
    6. Whether the Judge ought in the proper exercise of his discretion to have given
    the jury a good character direction.
    7. Whether there was a miscarriage of justice as to Clement within the meaning of
    section 41(1) of the Supreme Court Act.
    Result: 26th March, 2007
    Judgment Reserved Kenton Phillip v The Queen
    Crim. App. No.10 of 2004
    Criminal Law-Murder-Defence of accident-Intention-Mitigating circumstances
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Derick Sylvester
    Respondent: Mr. Christopher Nelson
    Issues: 1. Whether the Trial Judge erred in law in that the direction to the jury on the
    Appellant’s defence of Accident fell short of the legal standard required.
    2. Whether the Trial Judge erred in law in that he inadequately and or improperly
    directed the jury on the law of intention, thereby misdirecting the jury resulting in
    a miscarriage of justice.
    3. Whether the trial Judge misdirected and/or pressured the jury into reaching a
    verdict of murder thereby ignoring manslaughter.
    4. Whether the sentence imposed by the Trial Judge was extremely severe taking
    into consideration the mitigating and aggravating circumstances such as the
    Appellant’s age no prior convictions (inter alia).
    Result: 26th March, 2007
    Judgment Reserved
    Bob Modest v The Queen
    Crim. App. No.3 of 2005
    Criminal Law-Dangerous Harm-Conviction
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Gregory Delsin appearing amicus curia
    Respondent: Mr. Darshan Ramdhani
    Issues: 1. Whether the Attorney for the Complainant coerced the Accused into pleading
    Guilty and Whether the resulting conviction and sentence were accordingly
    unfair having been denied a full trial.
    2. Application to appeal sentence.
    Result: 27th March, 2007
    Sentence varied to Compensation of $5000.00 to be paid over a twelve month period. A
    fine of $1000.00 to be paid in months 13 and 14. In default of compensation two years
    imprisonment and in default of fine nine months imprisonment.
    Reason: It is apparent to the Court that the Appellant did not have the means to enable him to
    satisfy the sentence of the lower Court.
    Michael Sylvester v The Queen
    Crim. App. No.6 of 2006
    Criminal Law-Murder-Conviction-Specific Intent-Accident-Provocation-Good Character-Sentence Excessive
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Ruggles Ferguson
    Respondent: Mr. Christopher Nelson and Mr. Darshan Ramdhani
    Issues: 1. Application to deem the additional grounds as properly filed.
    2. Whether the Judge failed to direct the jury on the requirement of specific intent
    as an essential ingredient in establishing the offence of murder.
    3. Whether the Judge misdirected and/or gave inadequate directions to the jury on
    the defence of accident and failed to draw their attention to relevant evidence
    that would support such a defence.
    4. Whether the Judge even though he gave proper and thorough legal direction on
    provocation, failed to put into context the fact of the case as it related to this
    particular issue.
    5. Whether at the conclusion of his summing up the Judge failed to put all of the
    options available to the jury in their deliberations.
    6. Whether the verdict of the jury is unsafe and unsatisfactory.
    7. Whether the Judge even though he correctly directed the jury on the role of good
    character in a criminal trial, failed to guide them adequately on the relevant
    evidence that supported the good character of the Appellant.
    8. Whether the sentence imposed on the Appellant was excessive in all the
    circumstances of this case.
    Result: 28th March, 2007
    Judgment Delivered. Sentence reduced from 20 years to 12 years.
    28th March, 2007
    Coram: His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Brian Alleyne, SC – Chief Justice
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Michael Gordon, QC – Justice of Appeal
    His Lordship, the Hon. Mr. Hugh A. Rawlins – Justice of Appeal
    Enos Brown v The Queen
    Crim. App. No.11 of 2006
    Criminal Law-Indecent Assault-Conviction
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Peter David
    Respondent: Mr. Christopher Nelson, Director of Public Prosecutions
    Issue: Whether the jury’s verdict is unsafe having regard to the evidence adduced by the
    Prosecution.
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Matter traversed to next sitting of the Court. High Court Civil Appeals
    Adrian De Gale v Moses Bolah
    Civ. App. No.9 of 2005
    Company Law-Proprietary Estoppel-Detriment
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Cajeton Hood
    Respondent: Mr. Gregory Delsin
    Issues: 1. Whether the Judge’s decision is against the weight of the evidence in that he
    failed to give due weight to the admissions emanating from cross examination of
    the Respondent that the Respondent had on a prior occasion returned to live in
    Grenada and had then acquired extensive properties including a home and a
    farm in Grenada and that in relying on the conscience of the court the
    Respondent ought to have made full disclosure to the court of these facts without
    these facts having to be drawn from the Respondent in cross examination.
    2. Whether the Judge erred in law in i) holding that the deceased Manoah De Gale
    induced in the Respondent a belief that a certain benefit was going to accrue to
    the Respondent on the death of the deceased ii) that the Respondent acted to
    his detriment; iii) the detrimental acts of the Respondent were done in reliance on
    or as a result of a belief that he the respondent would become entitled to the
    deceased’s property on his death.
    3. Whether the Judge erred in law in holding that there was clear evidence of the
    nature of an oral agreement in the statement made by the deceased.
    4. Whether the Judge erred in law in holding that it would be unconscionable for the
    Appellant as personal representative of the deceased not to be bound by what
    he held to be the promise of the deceased in all the circumstances of the case.
    5. Whether the Judge erred in law in holding that a promise by the deceased
    Manoah De Gale during the lifetime of his wife to give the property of his wife to
    her son, the Respondent, could give rise to an estoppel without evidence of a
    power in the deceased to so dispose of the property of his wife during her lifetime
    and without evidence of the agreement or acquiescence of the wife to or in such
    promise.
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Appeal dismissed with costs.
    Reason: Court of the opinion that Counsel’s contention that Moses Bolah seeking an equitable
    remedy did not come to the Court with clean hands and that if the information regarding
    Moses Bolah’s first return was given to the Judge the Judge would have been able to find
    that his return was not substantially on account of the request of the deceased, was
    merely speculative and was thereby correctly rejected by the Judge.
    As long as there was something said capable of serving as an inducement, the fact that
    perhaps the Claimant may have been intending to return to Grenada does not deter from
    the entitlement to rely upon the inducement. He does not need to prove the inducement and it is sufficient if such an inducement would have caused a reasonable man to have
    acted upon it.
    Other aspects of non-disclosure relied upon by Counsel were insignificant and immaterial
    and therefore there is no merit in that aspect of the case.
    There is amplitude of evidence to justify a finding in favour of Moses Bolah and therefore
    there is no basis for interfering with the finding that he was induced to return. It is clear
    that it was the intention of Manoah De Gale to give a share in the business to Moses
    Bolah. There is no basis for interfering with the Judge’s findings/decision in relation to
    this.
    The Court has no basis or entitlement to interfere with the findings of fact as found by the
    Judge below. There is no merit in the entire appeal.
    On the issue of costs, the residuary estate must bear the costs of these proceedings.
    That is the estate that is left after there is paid out to Moses Bolah his one half share of
    the value of the estate so far as it relates to W&M De Gale.
    Rashida Romain v Commissioner of Police
    Civ. App. No.14 of 2005
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Dr. Francis Alexis
    Respondent: Mr. Raulston Glasgow and Ms. Nadine Wilkins
    Issues: 1. Whether the Judge erred in law in holding that the Appellant does not have an
    arguable case for the granting to her of leave to apply for an administrative order
    of certiorari and prohibition and for a declaration.
    2. Whether the Judge erred in law in holding that the application by the Appellant
    for such leave was premature.
    3. Whether the Judge erred in law in ruling that the Respondent’s action was
    reasonable in the circumstances, given the contradictory evidence.
    4. Whether the Judge erred in law in holding that disciplinary charge laid against
    the Appellant by the Respondent was reasonable and legal in the circumstances.
    5. Whether the Judge erred in law in failing to hold that the disciplinary offence
    charged against the Appellant was no offence in law, given the uncontroverted
    absence of any statutory provision or any statute-like measure such as a circular
    or notice or memorandum, or any established procedure or practice, requiring
    the Appellant as diarist to obtain permission from the SPO in charge or from
    anyone else before issuing a firearm and ammunition to a colleague officer or a
    rural Constable of the Royal Grenada Police Force, so that the Respondent had
    no jurisdiction to charge her disciplinarily therefor and to purport to expose her to
    serious disciplinary punishments including dismissal.
    6. Whether the Judge erred in law in holding that the Appellant was inviting the
    Court to enter into a consideration of the merits of the charge against her and not
    the fairness or reasonableness of the decision of the Respondent.
    Result: 28th March, 2007
    No appeal before the court. Purported appeal is struck out of the list. No order as to
    costs. Reason: Leave required. Leave not sought.
    Kenny Smart v Godwin Alexis
    Civ. App. No.20 of 2005
    Contract Law-oral agreement-Specific performance-time of the essence-equitable
    interest
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Cajeton Hood
    Respondent: Mrs. Celia Edwards
    Issues: 1. Whether the Judge erred in law in holding that there was no contract on which
    the parties could claim specific performance.
    2. Whether the Judge erred in law in holding that the Appellant could only rescind
    the contract by making time of the essence and thereafter acting on the breach.
    3. Whether the Judge based his decision on perverse findings of fact in that the
    findings were inconsistent with the evidence that had been led before him.
    4. Whether the Judge wrongly applied the law to the facts of the case and in the
    premises based his decision on irrelevant considerations.
    5. Whether the Judge erred in law in holding that the Respondent was to be
    awarded an equitable interest in the property in all the circumstances of the case.
    6. Whether the Judge erred in law in holding that the Respondent was entitled to
    receive half the value of the sum which would have accrued to him had he
    obtained half of the property and sold it.
    7. Whether the Judge erred in law in holding that the ratable value to be applied to
    the valuation of the land was that rate at the time of the filing of the claim.
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Judgment Reserved
    Order: Matter referred to mediation. Parties to agree upon a mediator within seven days
    of today’s date. Mediation to be conducted within one month of today’s date. The
    Registrar shall communicate the result of the mediation to the Chief Registrar
    immediately on completion of the mediation process and perfecting of the mediation
    order.
    Failing a successful mediation, this Court will deliver the judgment on this appeal.
    Janin Caribbean Contractors Ltd. V Consolidated Contractors Company (UK) Ltd
    Civ. App. No.1 of 2006
    Civil Practice & Procedure-Application without notice-Striking out
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Ian Sandy, Ms. Claudette Joseph, Mr. D. Horsford
    Respondent: Ms. Roslyn Wilkinson, Ms. Shireen Wilkinson Issues: 1. Whether the Judge erred when he held the Defendant to a higher standard of
    stating his defence than was required of the Plaintiff in stating his claim.
    2. Whether the Judge erred when he characterized CPR 2000 Part 11.3(2) as
    providing a window of opportunity for a potential applicant to completely
    disregard Part 11.3(1) if he was prepared to pay the costs of the application.
    3. Whether the Judge erred when he heard and ruled on an oral application made
    without notice.
    4. Whether the Judge erred by not requiring that the applicant file the requisite
    evidence in support and give the mandatory notice to the Respondent.
    5. Whether the Judge erred by not following the process set out in CPR 2000 Part
    26.2.
    6. Whether the Judge erred in stating that the evidence of Mr. Duncan was
    inadmissible.
    7. Whether the Judge erred in striking out the “impugned” paragraphs of the
    Witness statement of Anthony Croome prior to the process of examination and
    cross-examination.
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Appeal allowed. Defence reinstated. Trial to proceed on the basis of pleadings as filed
    under Supreme Court Rules 1970 and costs of this appeal to follow the events in the trial
    Reason: Matter commenced under 1970 Supreme Court Rules
    Tillman Thomas v Richard Cheltenham
    Civ. App. No.2 of 2006
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Sir. Fenton Ramsahoye QC and Mr. Glasgow
    Respondent: Mr. Elliott Motley QC and Mr. Ruggles Ferguson
    Issue:
    Result: 28th March, 2007
    Matter taken off the list. Commissioner is functus officio. Depending on whether the
    Commission is extended, Counsel will decide whether to pursue the matter.
    Grenada Development Bank v BNP Entertainment Limited et al
    Civ. App. No.4 of 2006
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Gregory Delsin
    Respondent: Mr. Henry Paryag for 3rd Respondent
    Issues: 1. Whether the Trial Judge erred in law when he ordered that the claim against the
    third named Respondent should be dismissed.
    2. Whether the Judge erred in law when he concluded that the third named Respondent was not liable to the Appellant.
    3. Whether the Judge erred in law when he failed to consider the undisputed
    evidence that the third named Respondent signed the debenture and deed of
    further charge as a result of a free exercise of the donor’s independent will and
    as such the transactions should not be set aside merely because the third named
    respondent did not receive independent legal advice.
    4. Whether the Judge erred when he failed to give any or any proper consideration
    to the evidence of the third named Respondent to the effect that she did not read
    the debenture and deed of further charge before she signed them particularly in
    the context of the undisputed evidence that she was very experienced and
    familiar with mortgage transactions.
    5. Whether the Judge erred in law in that he failed to consider or to give due
    consideration to the fact that there was no confidential relationship between the
    Appellant and the Third named Respondent, there was no agency between the
    Appellant and the second named Respondent and took no account of the fact
    that the third named Respondent held herself out to the Appellant as a principal
    officer of the first named Defendant.
    Result: 27th March, 2007
    Matter traversed to next sitting.
    The 3rd Respondent to file and serve skeleton arguments on or before the 27th April 2007.
    Response to be filed and served within 14 days thereafter.
    Magisterial Criminal Appeals Against Sentence
    Atiba Campbell v Commissioner of Police
    Mag. Crim. App. No.5 of 2006
    Criminal Law-Possession of a Controlled Drug
    Appearances:
    Appellant: No appearance
    Respondent: Ms. Dionne Lawrence
    Issue:
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Matter traversed. Direction given to the Registrar to personally inform the Appellant of
    the date of the hearing on next occasion. Affidavit of proof of notice to be filed in the
    Court.
    Reason: Appellant not served.
    Fitzroy Miguel v Commissioner of Police
    Mag. Crim. App. No.2 of 2007
    Criminal Law-Possession of a Controlled Drug-Sentence Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Peter David
    Respondent: Ms. Dionne Lawrence
    Issues: 1. Whether sentence was unconstitutional.
    2. Whether sentence should be reduced or appellant fined.
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Appeal allowed. It is ordered that time served be considered the sentence in this matter.
    Reason: Sentence excessive.
    Sheldon Nelson v Commissioner of Police
    Mag. Crim. App. No.3 of 2007
    Criminal Law-Stealing-Sentence
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Arley Gill
    Respondent: Ms. Dionne Lawrence
    Issue: Whether the sentence should run concurrently rather than consecutively.
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Appeal withdrawn. Conviction and sentence upheld.
    Sherwin Marksman v Commissioner of Police
    Mag. Crim. App. No.4 of 2007
    Criminal Law-Possession of a controlled drug-Sentence
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Peter David
    Respondent: Ms. Dionne Lawrence
    Issues: 1. Whether sentence was too severe.
    2. Whether a fine should be imposed rather than the custodial sentence.
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Appeal allowed. Sentence reduced to time served.
    Reason: Sentence excessive.
    Montgomery Billy v Commissioner of Police
    Mag. Crim. App. No.5 of 2007
    Criminal Law-Unlawfully Causing Harm-Sentence
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Peter David Respondent: Ms. Dionne Lawrence
    Issue: Whether the Appellant should be accorded the opportunity to have this matter retried.
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Appeal allowed. Conviction and Sentence set aside. Retrial ordered.
    Reason: The General Rule is that once a Defendant pleads Guilty with a cause, the Judicial officer
    must inquire into the cause. In the absence of that the conviction cannot be sustained.
    Such a plea initiates the necessity for an inquiry into the circumstances and if having
    heard the Defendant’s explanation or cause the Magistrate is satisfied that the guilty plea
    is appropriate, then that is the end of the matter.
    Magisterial Criminal Appeals Against Conviction
    Darrel Charles et al v Commissioner of Police
    Mag. Crim. App. No.14 of 2006
    Criminal Law-Breaking and Entering
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Appellant absent.
    Respondent: Ms. Dionne Lawrence
    Issue:
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Traversed to next sitting of the Court. Notice to the Appellant. Affidavit of service of
    notice to be filed in the Court.
    Reason: Appellant not served.
    Andy Thomas et al v Commissioner of Police
    Mag. Crim. App. No.15 of 2006
    Criminal Law-Stealing
    Appearances:
    Appellant: No Appearance
    Respondent: Ms. Dionne Lawrence
    Issue:
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Traversed to next sitting of the Court with notice to be given to John Bartholomew.
    Affidavit of service of notice to be filed in the Court.
    Lester James v Commissioner of Police
    Mag. Crim. App. No.16 of 2006
    Criminal Law-Unlawful Wounding -Sentence Appearances:
    Appellant: In Person
    Respondent: Ms. Dionne Lawrence
    Issue: Whether magistrate’s findings of fact were correct?
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Appeal dismissed.
    Reason: Appeal without merit. Court has no jurisdiction to upset the findings of the Magistrate.
    Kenson Passie a.k.a. Kenson Phillip v Commissioner of Police
    Mag. Crim. App. No.17 of 2006
    Criminal Law-Parking in a No Parking Area-Sentence
    Appearances:
    Appellant: In Person
    Respondent: Ms. Dionne Lawrence
    Issue: Whether there should be a retrial?
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Appeal dismissed. Appellant given one month from today’s date to pay the fine imposed
    by the Magistrate
    Reason: No affidavit evidence to support claim.
    Carlyle Joseph v Commissioner of Police
    Mag. Crim. App. No.18 of 2006
    Criminal Law-Causing Harm-Conviction
    Appearances:
    Appellant: In Person
    Respondent: Ms. Dionne Lawrence
    Issue: Whether the Appellant got a fair trial having regard to the fact that the Magistrate chose
    to believe the Complainant’s version of the facts.
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Appeal dismissed. Time for payment of fine and compensation is extended to two
    months from today.
    Reason: Court cannot interfere with the Magistrate’s findings of fact.
    Eric Lorenza Channer v Commissioner of Police
    Mag. Crim. App. No.1 of 2007 Criminal Law-Possession of a Controlled Drug-Conviction
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Peter David
    Respondent: Ms. Dionne Lawrence
    Issue: Volunteriness of a statement to the police
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant to be released from
    custody.
    Reason: On the basis that the issue of voluntariness arose in the trial and there was a challenge
    whether the statements were voluntary, the Learned Magistrate was wrong in not
    allowing the voir dire.
    Damion Joseph v Commissioner of Police
    Mag. Crim. App. No.6 of 2007
    Criminal Law-Stealing-Conviction
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Peter David appears amicus
    Respondent: Ms. Dionne Joseph
    Issue: Application to withdraw appeal.
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Application granted. Appeal dismissed.
    Magisterial Civil Appeals
    Merritt Jones v Courts Grenada Limited
    Mag. Civ. App. No.1 of 2006
    Warranty
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Ruggles Ferguson
    Respondent: Mr. Archelaus Joseph
    Issue: Whether there was a breach of the warranty
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    By Consent Order of the Magistrate set aside. Respondent to reimburse the Appellant
    for three months installments on the hire purchase agreement.
    Cuthbert Andrews v Robert Findlay
    Mag. Civ. App. No.1 of 2007 Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Henry Paryag
    Respondent: Ms. Kim George
    Issue: The notice of appeal was not served. Counsel was not retained, only appeared as a
    courtesy.
    Result: 29th March, 2007
    Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
    Chamber Applications
    His Lordship the Hon. Mr. Hugh A. Rawlins – Justice of Appeal
    29th March, 2007
    Attorney General of Grenada v Eddison Dufferine, Percy Thomas
    Civ. App. No.27 of 2006
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Ms. Nadine Wilkins and Mr. Raulston Glasgow
    Respondent: Mr. Alban John
    Issues: 1. Whether the Judge erred in law in directing that the Registrar General register
    the name of the person the Applicant claims to be his father in the column
    reserved for name description and occupation of father on the Applicant’s birth
    certificate.
    2. Whether the Judge erred in law by finding contrary to the express provisions of
    S.27 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act and the Registration of Births
    and Deaths (Amendment) Act of 1991 and whether it was contrary to the law for
    the Judge to direct that the Registrar amend the Register of Births in disregard of
    those provisions.
    3. Whether the Judge erred in granting the Applicant’s application even after finding
    that the Registrar had not erred in law in refusing the Applicant’s request for the
    Register of Births to be amended.
    4. Whether the Registration of Births and Deaths Act confers jurisdiction on the
    Court to hear an appeal from a decision of the Registrar General.
    Result: This appeal is to be fixed for hearing at the next sitting of the Court of Appeal in this state
    in July 2007.
    Jason Thomas v The Queen
    Crim. App. No.15 of 2003
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Peter David Respondent: Mr. Darshan Ramdhani
    Issue:
    Result: Appellant admitted to bail in the sum of $10,000.00 with one surety pending the
    prosecution of the appeal herein.
    The Public Service Commission v Godwin Bibby
    Civ. App. No.2 of 2007
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Ms. Nadine Wilkins and Mr. Raulston Glasgow
    Respondent: No appearance
    Issue: Application for stay of High Court Judgment pending determination of appeal.
    Result: Order:
    1. Solicitors for the Appellant shall file and serve skeleton arguments in relation to
    the stay of execution of the Order of the Judge that was made 17th January 2007
    on or before the 19th April 2007.
    2. Respondent ‘s Solicitors on his behalf shall file and serve affidavit in reply if
    necessary and skeleton arguments on or before 30th April 2007.
    3. This application shall be set down for hearing on the first chamber date in the
    Court of Appeal and may be decided on the written submissions by a single
    Judge of the Court who if necessary may also request oral submissions.
    4. Costs reserved pending the determination of the appeal.
    O’Handley Mc Kenzie v Doris Mitchell et al
    Civ. App. No.8 of 2007
    Appearances:
    Appellant: Mr. Alban John
    Respondent: 2
    nd Respondent present
    Issue: Application for leave to appeal.
    Result: Order:
    1. Pursuant to section 33 (2)(g)(ii) of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
    (Grenada) Act, Cap. 336 of the Revised Laws of Grenada, 1990, the application
    for leave to appeal is hereby treated as notice of appeal, and consequentially
    the Draft Notice of Appeal which was filed with the application for leave to appeal
    is deemed to have been filed on the 22nd day of March 2007.
    2. All further proceedings shall be in accordance with the rules which govern
    procedural Appeals to the Court of Appeal.
    3. Solicitors for the Applicant shall file and serve a Record of Appeal which shall
    include the documents and pleadings that were filed in the High Court
    proceedings and a transcript of the proceedings before the High Court Judge on or before the 12th day of April 2007, or as soon thereafter as may be possible.
    4. Solicitors for the Respondent shall file and serve written submissions and a List
    of Authorities n or before the 12th day of April 2007.
    5. The application for stay of the order of 12th March 2007 is dismissed.
    6. This appeal shall be determined by a single Judge on the written submissions.
    7. 7. Costs shall be in the appeal.

    /march-26-30-2007/
     Prev
    March 12 – 16, 2007
    Next 
    May 14 – 15, 2007
    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