Baldwin Spencer Appellant v The Attorney-general of Antigua and Barbuda First Respondent Lester Bryant Bird Second Respondent Asian Village Antigua Ltd Third Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: BYRON, C.J. [AG.],DENNIS BYRON,Chief Justice [Ag.],SATROHAN SINGH,Justice of Appeal,ALBERT REDHEAD
• Judgment Date: 08 April 1998
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1998] ECSC J0408-1
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Docket Number: CIV. APP. NO.20A OF 1997
• Date: 08 April 1998

[1998] ECSC J0408-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Mr. C. M. Dennis Byron Chief Justice [Ag.]

The Hon. Mr. Satrohan Singh Justice of Appeal

The Hon. Mr. Albert Redhead Justice of Appeal

CIV. APP. NO.20A OF 1997

Between:

Baldwin Spencer

Appellant

and

The Attorney-general of Antigua and Barbuda

First Respondent

Lester Bryant Bird

Second Respondent

Asian Village Antigua Limited

Third Respondent

Appearances:

Dr. Fenton Ramsahoye, Q.C.; Mr. Cosmos Phillips, Q.C.

Mr. Colin Derrick and Mr. Harold Lovell for the Appellant

Mr. David Turner-Samuels, Q.C. and Mr. Anthony Astaphan for the first Respondent

Mr. Karl Hudson Phillips, Q.C. and Mr. Anthony Astaphan for the second Respondent

Mr. Donald Halstead for the third Respondent

Civil Practice and Procedure— Administrative law — Challenge by Opposition leader to legality of certain actions/courses taken by the Government — Principles governing summarily striking out actions — A-G of Duchy of Lancaster v London and North Western Railway Co. [1892] 3 Ch 279; Dyson v A-G [1911] 1 K.B. 410; Wenlock v Moloney [1965] 2 AER 871 considered; Williams and Humbert v W and H Trademarks [1986] 1 AC 368 applied — Whether a cause of action was disclosed on allegation of constitutional violations, fraud, conspiracy and the commission of various torts of public mischief committed by the government — Cross-appeal on the issue of locus standi and on the failure to award costs — Meaning ascribed to 'discrimination' as used in the constitution — Nielson v Barker [1982] 32 WIR 254 applied — Whether the action taken by the Government was for a 'public purpose' — Hamabai Framjee Petit v Secretary of State for India [1914] LR P.C. applied — Clunies-Ross v Commonwealth of Australia [1985] LRC [Const.] 292; Williams v Government of St. Lucia [1969] 14 WIR 177 applied — Whether a public purpose can be achieved through private enterprise at the instance of a private entrepreneur whose sole aim may be to make a profit — Narayan Singh v Bihar [1978] AIR 136 applied — Whether the issue of whether an acquisition is made for a public purpose is rendered non-justiciable by section 3[1], Land Acquisition Act — Interpretation of the Constitution Order and section 9 of the Constitution — Wijeyesekera v Festing [1919] AC 646 P.C., and others referred to — Windward Properties v Government of St. Vincent [1996] 1 WLR 279 P.C. applied — Determination of what issues were political, rather than justiciable, and therefore not for the Court's interference — Kenilores v A-G [1986] LRC [Const.] 126 applied — Interpretation and contrast of sections 18[1] and 119[1] of the Constitution — Whether, once Parliament had [subsequently] enacted necessary legislation, the agreement in issue could still be considered invalid — On the issue of whether the Opposition leader had locus standi in the proceedings, Frank v A-G [Antigua]; Blake v Byron [St. Kitts]; A-G v Lawrence; A-G v Payne; Richard and James v G-G and A-G [St. Vincent]; Gordon v Minister of Finance [St. Lucia] considered. Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal allowed.

BYRON, C.J. [AG.]

1 This is an appeal against the decision of Saunders J delivered on 21st November 1997 striking out the Statements of Claim of the appellant in two consolidated actions.

The Proceedings

2 The appellant is the leader of the opposition in the House of Representatives in Antigua and Barbuda. He initiated two actions on behalf of himself and all other members of his political party the United Progressive Party.

3 In the first action which commenced on 23 ^rd September,1997 he sought a declaration that an agreement, dated 18 ^th February 1997 between the Government of Antigua and Barbuda and Asian Village Antigua Limited for the development of an area on the west coast of Antigua, was unconstitutional, illegal null and void and damages for fraud and conspiracy and misdemeanour in public office and other relief, the said damages to be paid to him for the benefit of the people of Antigua and Barbuda. The defendants to the action were the Attorney General, sued "both officially as representing the Government and personally as a member of the Cabinet"; the Prime Minister sued "as representing himself and all other Cabinet ministers personally and in their official capacity"; and Asian Village.

4 In the second Action which commenced on 23 ^rd October 1997 he sought declarations that a bill the Asian Village Development Act 1997 was ultra vires the powers of the Legislature and that the Governor General was not entitled to assent to it and other reliefs.

5 The defendants applied to have both writs and Statements of Claim struck out as disclosing no cause of action and being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.

6 The matters were consolidated and came on for hearing on 5 ^th November 1997.

The Judgment

7 In a lengthy and closely reasoned judgment the learned trial Judge considered the statements of claim and concluded that the allegations did not disclose any cause of action under the Constitution, but that the appellant had locus standi to bring the action.

8 He also concluded that no particulars of the essential ingredients of fraud, conspiracy and misdemeanour in public office were pleaded and consequently the allegations pleaded could not to disclose any cause of action for those torts.

9 Accordingly he dismissed both cases, but made no order as to costs.

Background

10 On 18 ^th February 1997 the Government of Antigua and Barbuda entered into an agreement with Asian Village Antigua Limited (Asian Village) for the development of an area on the west coast of Antigua. The Government was to acquire Guiana Island and other lands and transfer them to Asian Village for $15.5 million dollars spread over a 10 year period. Asian Village would construct a massive project which would include resort accommodation of approximately 1000 rooms; casino; golf course; retail shops; residential developments; and other resort, commercial and hotel related projects and facilities. The agreement was characterised by promises of very extensive fiscal and other incentives which included exemptions from taxes, privileges, special arrangements for construction of infrastructure and many others. There was political controversy about it, the appellant's political party opposing the project. The Government introduced a resolution in Parliament to have both houses consider and affirm the agreement and to obtain authorisation for the acquisition of the lands which were the subject matter of the agreement.

11 On 4 ^th July 1997 the House of Representatives approved the agreement and authorised the acquisition of the lands for the public purpose of "the promotion and development of tourism and supporting tourist related activities". The Appellant and four of his Opposition Parliamentary colleagues absented themselves from the House when the resolution was moved and passed. On 6 ^th August 1997 a similar resolution was passed in the Senate and the opposition Senators similarly absented themselves.

12 On the 7 ^th, 21 ^st and 28 ^th August 1997 declarations acquiring the lands identified in the agreement were published in the Gazette in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act.

13 On 18 ^th September 1997 an order paper was circulated to all members of the House of Representatives in respect of a meeting to be convened on 23 ^rd September. Item 14(a) was a Motion by the Hon Prime Minister to move the first reading of the Asian Village Development Act, 1997.

14 On 6 ^th October 1997 the Bill was taken through all its stages in the House of representatives, and was amended at committee stage to be The Asian Village Resort (Incentives) Act. On 20 ^th October the Senate passed the Bill.

15 At the time of the trial the Governor General had not assented to the Bill and it was not yet enacted. Since the trial, the Governor assented to the Act on 9 ^th December 1997, and to an amendment thereto on 29 ^th January 1998.

The Appeal

16 The appellant advanced several grounds of appeal. In effect these challenged the application of the principles of summarily striking out actions, and the conclusion that no cause of action was disclosed on the allegations of constitutional violations and the commission of various torts of public mischief. The respondent cross appealed on the issue of locus standi and on the failure to award costs.

17 The third respondent challenged the decision to join him as party but as the whole action had been dismissed this became an academic issue, only relevant to the question of costs.

The Principles of Striking out Pleadings

18 Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court empowers the Court to strike out any pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or is frivolous or vexatious is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The principles upon which this jurisdiction is exercised are well settled and counsel for the appellant indicated that he had no quarrel with the principles which the learned trial Judge enunciated. He argued that they were wrongly applied. In brief the court is empowered to dismiss an action in a summary way without a trial where the statement of claim discloses no cause of action, or is shown to be frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. This summary procedure should only be used in clear and obvious cases, when it can clearly be seen, on the face of it, that a claim is obviously unsustainable, cannot succeed or in some other way is an abuse of the process of the court. In one of the cases from Canada on which reliance was placed the standard was expressed in terms that the claim should not be struck out if there is even a scintilla of a cause of action ( Operation Dismantle v the Queen (1986) LRC (Const.) 421.

19 This was the stringent standard which the learned trial Judge applied to the...