Dear Editor,
I am indeed pained at the recent happenings, letter of complaint from the Registrar and press release from the office of the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary as they relate to the Registrar of the Supreme Court and the acting Chancellor. Unfortunately none of the above will help to strengthen the judiciary, but cause further contempt and disrespect by members of the public. It does not stop there as I am certain that this tussle will also make our judiciary a laughing stock in the legal circles of the Caribbean and indeed the wider beyond.
The issue of trying to eradicate the huge backlog of matters in the High Court and payment of $15,000 per case has been raised and it is now public knowledge. I do not feel that there was any great success in this exercise and that the money expended could have been better utilized in paying part-time judges to tackle matters that were and are really defended. As far as I understand payment in the sum of $15,000 per case was made for those cases that were deemed to be abandoned and these abandoned cases I believe made up over 90% of the cases for which over $41 million dollars was paid out to judges. A case is deemed to be abandoned when a party in the matter fails to do a required act within a specified time and after one year the matter is to be deemed abandoned as it cannot be “resurrected” even with the consent of the other side. Thus a judge after perusing the record can see in a matter of minutes whether it can be deemed abandoned or not.
I do feel that it was ill advised for payment to have been made for having to deal with a matter abandoned as opposed to adjudicating and completing a defended matter. Anyway that was not for me to decide, and perhaps part of the restructuring of the Deeds Registry is for the Registrar to submit a list from time to time of matters that are to be deemed abandoned. However this can only be properly done when the Registry is computerized.
I would wish to conclude by calling upon the Chancellor (ag) and the Registrar of the Supreme Court to desist from making any further public releases and/or statements. If there is any need to make any complaint and or to take any action, then please do so without any public fanfare. I note that in the press release from the office of the Chancellor (ag) mention was made of income derived from the above-mentioned process by Justice Ramlal. Justice Ramlal had been praised by the Chancellor (ag) for rising to assist and had no role in determining what was to be assigned to him. Thus it was improper for reference to have been made to him. I would wish to believe that this was a mistake. Speaking as a practitioner in our courts and a former member of the judiciary, I say that we have had enough and dignity should be allowed to prevail.
Yours faithfully,
K Juman-Yassin
