The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) recently dismissed an appeal by a former member of the Guyana Police Force who was seeking compensation after claiming he was unfairly discharged back in 1984, observing that the officer waited too long before reacting to his dismissal.
By waiting in excess of sixteen years before he decided to petition the President about his dismissal and subsequently approaching the courts, the appellant, John Sealy lost the appeal on the grounds that an undue delay without explanation renders the proceedings an abuse of the court’s process.
President of the CCJ, Justice Michael de la Bastide and sitting Justices Rolston Nelson, Jacob Wit, Duke Pollard and David Hayton, ruled that a claimant cannot wait for as along as he likes before bringing a claim, even if there is no specific limitation period applied as stated under Article 153 of the Guyana Constitution.
“It is in public interest that claims do not become stale, the courts assisting those who are vigilant to enforce their claims, but not those who sleep on them,” the CCJ judges said in their judgment, which was handed down last month.
John Sealy, who had sued the Police Service Commis-sion (PSC) and the Attorney General over his dismissal, said in court papers that his services were terminated on November 12, 1984 by the PSC “in the public interest with immediate effect.” He said no specific reason was provided for the termination and argued that his removal was unconstitutional.
Sealy initially claimed compensation saying that he was entitled to his salary and superannuation benefits, but this was later struck from the appeal when it went before the CCJ. He filed a motion in February 2001. Prior to this, he had petitioned the president to re-open his case and asked for his gratuity and pension among other benefits.
But in view of the delay from November 1984 to February 2001, Justice Roy J dismissed the motion as an abuse of the court’s process, treating it as a constitutional motion seeking redress under Article 153 of the Constitution. The court of appeal later dismissed the appeal; Justice Kissoon JA on its behalf stated that;
“It is unjust to give remedy to the appellant due to his neglect in filing his proceedings in a timely manner. His undue delay without explanation has rendered the proceedings an abuse of the Court’s process which will undermine the integrity of the judicial system.”
The CCJ upheld the decisions of Justices Roy J and Kissoon JA and ruled that legal disputes needed to be resolved in a timely and efficient manner. The court pointed to the case of Durity v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago where the Privy Council considered that undue delay without a cogent explanation in taking legal proceedings for redress for contravention of constitutional fundamental rights and freedoms could amount to an abuse of the court’s constitutional jurisdiction. The council also considered that the lapse of five years in seeking such redress amounted to inordinate delay in the absence of any cogent explanation.
Sealy was represented by attorneys-at-law Roopnarine Satram; Chandraprakesh Satram and Mahendra Satram while Vashist Maharaj and Sueanna David appeared for the AG and the PSC.
