Last Updated on March 10, 2020, 5:54 AM AST by Anthony Morris
Resident High Court Judge, His Lordship Mr Justice Eddy Ventose has featured a few maltreatment of the court procedure by Registrar Janine Harris-Lake, sister of St Kitts and Nevis’ Prime Minister Dr the Hon Timothy Harris.
In his ongoing decision in the issue Tanzania Tanzil v Lindsay Grant et al, Justice Ventose highlighted a few observances in an issue where Hon Lindsay Grant, Minister of Tourism and International Trade and Member of Parliament for St Christopher 4 and Mr Jonel Powell, St Kitts and Nevis’ Youth and Culture envoy are respondents. Powell and Grant are accomplices in the law office of Grant and Powell.
Equity Ventose communicated worry over the secrecy of court archives and procedures.
In his 31-page administering, Justice Ventose noticed that the experience of the Court is that in 2018, applications and different records were routinely put on the court document in four to five days, yet this had been improved inside a couple of days.
He noticed that in the Tanzil-Grant-Powell case, an ex parte application was documented by legal advisors for Tanzil at 12:10 p.m. on January 23, 2018 and that in a sworn statement on the side of the application to put aside the default judgment, Powell and Grant on that equivalent date “through an agen,” discovered that an application for default judgment was recorded by Tanzil.
“It is improbable that from 12:10 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. at the point when the court office shuts, the ex-parte application would have been put on the court document right now. It appears to be almost certainly, that somebody in the court office educated the litigants *(Grant and Powell) of the Claimant’s *(Tanzil’s) ex parte application. On the off chance that this is right, it brings up significant issues concerning the confidentality of court archives and procedures,” Justice Ventose composed.
Scrutinizing the ex parte application for the default judgment, Justice Ventose, a previous Professor of Law at the University of the West Indies, likewise noticed that it ought to have been promptly put under the watchful eye of the High Court Judge or Master for assurance and the main the High Court Judge or Master had jurisdicton to arrange that the Claimant (Tanzil) pull out to the Defendants (Grant and Powell).
“Given the idea of the application notice to the Defendants would fill no need,” said Justice Ventose, who called attention to that in the decision that “solitary a High Court Judge or Master may practice any forces of the court.”
He additionally saw that the “court office may not, under any conditions, practice any force, but just a procedural one, of the High Court Judge or Master,” including: “It isn’t right for anybody in the court office to advise Defendants regarding the Claimant’s ex parte application for default judgment.”
Equity Ventose focused on that “open trust in the organization of equity in St Christopher and Nevis will be genuinely and maybe unsalvageably dissolved if people in general sees that the court office “pick sides in debates preceding the court especially where that question includes open figures, legislators or government authorities.”
He said “frameworks should quickly be set up to guarantee this never happens again.”
“It’s a given that the court office in completing its fundamental capacities should consistently stay impartial between contradicting parties in debates preceding the court in St Christopher and Nevis. On the off chance that this continues or become a settled in part of the way of life of the court office, the court won’t spare a moment to utilize its forces under its inalienable purview to save its procedures from any real or endeavor to abuse or misuse,” said Justice Ventose.
He proceeded: “It couldn’t have been right for the Registrar of the High Court to coordinate Counsel *(for Tanzil) to come and clarify the ex parte application to her on the grounds that the ex parte application was essentially not one over which she had no locale. The court is of the feeling that it could see no rhyme or reason why this ex parte application was not quickly recorded for hearing under the watchful eye of a High Court Judge or Master. In addition, if there were any difficult issue with such an application, (or some other), it ought to have been brought immediateley to the consideration of a High Court Judge or Master.”
Equity Ventose said it “is totally inadmissible that an application that was recorded on January 23, 2018 was recorded by the court office to be heard by a Master roughly nine after 9 months on October 9, 2018.”
“The organization of equity will viably be undermined if this somehow managed to become regular practice,” he said.
Equity Ventose likewise noticed that the worries of Counsel for the Claimant in his letter to the Registrar of the High Court, Mrs Janine Harris-Lake, dated May 23, 2018 “appear to the court to be completely supported.”
Equity Ventose highlighted a note dated February 16, 2018 with the initials of Registrar Janine Harris-Lake expressing: “Direction to come and disclose this application to me as I am confounded.”
On May 23, 2018, the Claimant kept in touch with the Registrar showing why following 4 months the Claimant’s ex parte application for default was come back to them with no date set for hearing by High Court Judge or Master.
On July 18, 2018, Counsel for Claimant again kept in touch with the Registrar taking note of that this letter was a last pre-activity letter before documenting an application for leave to apply for legal survey looking to inspire proper activities as well as reactions from the Registrar in her ability as Registrar of the High Court.
On July 25, 2018 – The Registrar answered taking note of that she disagreed with the substance and tone of the May 23, 2018
letter which she states is a “patent endeavor to insult (her)self, (her) sibling *(Prime Minister Dr Timothy Harris)*
what’s more, the Government of this Federation.”
The Registrar of the High Court proceeded with that Counsel’s “allegations are ridiculous and have all the earmarks of being politically propelled and far surpass the ambit of sensible portrayal” of the Claimant.
Janine Harris-Lake further composed that she saw Counsel’s letter as “rude and ill bred and in requesting me to act; you have violated your limits. I take guidelines from the Chief Justice, the Judge, Master and Chief Registrar and nobody else.”
On October 9, 2018 – The High Court entered Judgment in Default with terms to be resolved. The Court perceived that the application to put aside default judgment was untimely and rejected it since judgment had not been entered at the hour of documenting of the application to put aside the default judgment.
The Court also ousted the application to strike out the case structure and decree of case in light of the fact that the requesting for judgment in default was first in time and had not been settled according to CPR 2000.
The judgment takes note of that the Application for Extension of Time was recorded (two years and one month – 25 months) after the cutoff time to document a resistance was passed and that the Registrar idealized the October 9, 2018 default judgment (16 months after the court entered the judgment in default.
In his judgment, Justice Ventose the Harvard-arranged Grant and the UWI-arranged Powell committed for break of trust, burst of trustee commitment and failure to record or misappropriation of US$460,000 (EC$1.2 million) having a spot with a client, Tanzania Tobing Tanzil.
He also requested Grant and Powell appear before a Disciplinary Tribunal of two Judges of the High Court to consider whether they should be suspended from practicing for a predefined time span or be struck off from the Court Roll.
Anthony Morris covers stories related to politics and regional developments. His in-depth reporting about governance and reforms makes him stand out in regional journalism, with a deep analysis of political trends and their impact on Caribbean communities.
