Sydney Uriah Prince Plaintiff/Appellant v Karl Phillippe De Jacques De La Bastide Sookh Mungal Supersad George Calvin Hamilton Thomas Defendants/Respondents [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: Court of Appeal (Antigua and Barbuda)
• Judge: PETERKIN, J.A.,ST. BERNARD J.A.,CHIEF JUSTICE
• Judgment Date: 06 January 1977
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1977] ECSC J0106-1
• Docket Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2 of 1977
• Date: 06 January 1977

[1977] ECSC J0106-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Sir Maurice Davis, Q.C.—Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

The Honourable Mr. Justice Peterkin

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2 of 1977

Between:

Sydney Uriah Prince

Plaintiff/Appellant

and

Karl Phillippe De Jacques De La Bastide

Sookh Mungal Supersad

George Calvin Hamilton Thomas

Defendants/Respondents

Appearances:

Sir Lionel Luckoo, S.C. (Guyana) for Appellant, S. Christian with him.

Attorney-General for Respondents, C. Richards with him.

JUDGEMNT

PETERKIN, J.A.

1 This appeal flows from a Commission of Inquiry announced in the Antigua Official Gazette of 2/9/76. The Commissioners were appointed under and by virtue of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, Cap.305.

2 The terms of reference were,

"to inquire into and investigate the contents of an address made on the third day of March 1976 in a Radio-Television broadcast by the Honourable Reuben Henry Harris to the citizens of the State of Antigua and Barbuda with particular reference to certain allegations therein made suggesting misconduct and irregularities amounting to possible dishonesty and malpractices in the conduct and administration of the finances and funds of the Public Service and of certain Statutory Authorities of the said State;

3 They were

"to make a full, faithful and impartial inquiry into the matters abovementioned and with all convenient speed to report fully your findings to me upon all facts relating to the matters abovementioned and any other matter connected therewith which may be brought to your notice and to submit such conclusions and observations as you see fit, making such recommendations and suggesting such remedies as you the said Commissioners may deem useful proper and/or expedient;"

4 Section 7 of the Act states that it shall be their duty to make a full faithful, and impartial inquiry into the matter specified in such commission, and Section 9 states that they may make such rules for their own guidance, and the conduct and management of proceedings before them, and the hours and times and places for their sittings.

5 The Commissioners commenced their inquiry on 3/9/76 at 10 a.m. and heard evidence. Thereafter, they sat and heard evidence except on Saturdays and Sundays. On Saturday 4th September the Appellant received a Summons from the Commission to attend and give evidence on Monday 6th September. The Appellant in obedience to the Summons attended in person. He took the oath, and then stated that he had been the minister responsible for the finances of the State of Antigua from January, 1974, to February, 1976; that he was one of the persons whose conduct was the subject of the inquiry or was in some way implicated or concerned in the matter under inquiry, and that he was entitled to be represented by Counsel. After answering a few questions he refused to answer any further questions, and the Chairman agreed to allow him until Thursday 9th September so that he could get Counsel to advise him. When he attended on 9th September the Chairman informed him that he would not be required to give evidence before Tuesday 14th September. On Monday 13th September, the Appellant's Counsel, Mr. Sydney Christian, appeared before the Commission, and made application that the Appellant be provided with:

• "(i) the contents of the address made by Hon. Reuben Henry Harris in a Radio-Television broadcast on 3rd March, 1976, referred to in the terms of reference of the said Commission;

• (ii) a copy of the evidence already led which relates to my conduct or which in some way implicates or concerns me in the matters under inquiry, and

• (iii) particulars of the matters on which the Commission desire that I give evidence."

6 The Commission after considering the application ruled that he be supplied with a copy of the address of 3rd March, 1976, and with a copy of the Statements of the witnesses who had given evidence relating to his conduct up to Friday 10th September, 1976. They did not agree to the request made at (iii) above. They required the Appellant to return on Tuesday 21st September to indicate the position he proposed to take after being advised by Counsel. These are the facts and circumstances as they existed up to the time of the filing of Appellant's Originating Summons dated 25/9/76. They are contained in the affidavit of the Appellant dated 25/9/76 in support of his Summons. By his Summons the Appellant sought the following relief:—

• "(i) A declaration that the proceedings of the inquiry which commenced on 3rd September, 1976 have been conducted in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of section 11 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, Cap. 305 and all its deliberations are therefore null and void;

• (ii) A declaration that the proceedings of the Inquiry have been conducted in contravention of the principles set out in section 8 of the Constitution of Antigua in that the plaintiff has been and will continue to be unable to obtain a fair hearing and that the interests of justice have been prejudiced;

• (iii) An injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing to hold the Inquiry and to act thereunder;

• (iv) Alternatively, a declaration that the plaintiff is a person whose conduct is the subject of the inquiry and/or the plaintiff is in some way implicated or concerned in certain matters under inquiry and as such —

  • (a) was entitled to be presented either in person or by counsel throughout the whole of the inquiry, and

  • (b) is entitled to refuse to answer any questions put to him by or with the concurrence of the Defendants;

7 It was I think filed on 27/9/76.

8 The Appellant filed two additional affidavits, one dated 13/10/76, and the other dated 21/10/76. They both related to events subsequent to 27/9/76. The affidavits alleged that on 5th October, 1976, Appellant's Counsel appeared before the Commission and made application on his behalf to recall for cross-examination Messrs Merchant, Guishard, and Henry, all of whom had given evidence on 3/9/76. He also made application to call as a witness the Hon. Reuben Henry Harris, Minister of Finance, whose address was referred to in the terms of reference of the Commission. On 6th October Counsel again appeared before the Commission and was informed by the Chairman that the Commissioners would not permit Counsel to call Mr. Harris as no useful purpose would be served in their view in requiring him to give evidence. They also informed Counsel that they would not permit the financial officers who had given evidence on 3/9/76, namely, Messrs Merchant, Guishard, and Henry to be recalled. In making his request for the recall of these three witnesses Counsel had drawn to the Commissioners attention the fact that the transcripts of evidence supplied to the Appellant did not contain their evidence in spite of the Commission having so ruled, and that the Appellant up to then was still unaware as to what allegations they had made. He then informed the Commissioners that the Appellant would decline to give evidence until his rights were determined by the High Court. After hearing further evidence the public...