Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo has filed an appeal to the $20M default judgment granted to former government minister Annette Ferguson, who Justice Sandra Kurtzious found was defamed by Jagdeo, regarding certain statements he had made concerning her acquisition of land.
He is also urgently seeking an interim order staying the judgment, pending the hearing and determination of his appeal.
Justice Kurtzious had previously imposed the default judgment against Jagdeo, because he had failed to file his defence on time, in the libel suit Ferguson had brought against him.
He had filed an application seeking to set aside the judgment. Justice Kurtzious, however, threw out that application.
The Vice President is now hoping that the Full Court would set aside Justice Kurtzious’ ruling; even as he continues to seek an avenue for an opportunity to file his defence which he admits had been out of time.
He wants to be allowed seven days from the granting of the application he now seeks, to file his defence, and for the case management timelines to be extended “to properly defend” the action Ferguson filed against him.
Through his attorney Devindra Kissoon, Jagdeo (the Appellant) is also seeking an Order declaring that Part 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)—in particular Rule 12.02—violates Article 144 (8) of the Constitution.
Citing the grounds for his appeal, the Vice President (VP) is arguing among other things that the judge erred in law and in fact by finding that the defences he advanced to Ferguson’s claim, had no real prospects of succeeding.
He said that she also erred and misdirected herself by entering a default judgment against him, without considering all the grounds of his defence, including but not limited to that of justification.
The Appellant is of the view that the judge failed to appreciate what he said was the overriding objective of the CPR in ensuring justice between both parties; and by placing “undue emphasis” on Ferguson’s pleadings, without giving similar regard to his defence.
Jagdeo is further contending that the Court fell into legal and factual error in its finding that he had not specified the defamatory meaning sought to be defended as fair comment; and by attempting to assess the evidence by conducting a mini-trial, instead of finding that he did have a real prospect of success, thereby overlooking the facts averred in his pleadings which he said a trial would prove.
The Appellant complains, too, that the judge erred in finding that the explanation he proffered for failing to file the defence was not reasonable.
According to Jagdeo, the judge wrongly exercised her discretion and misapplied the law.
In the circumstances, he is asking for an urgent stay of Justice Kurtzious’ ruling, while noting that she will soon decide on the full quantum of damages to be awarded to Ferguson.
In her ruling last Wednesday, Justice Kurtzious had said that contrary to advancements made by Kissoon, Ferguson’s application for a default judgment was well within the ambit of the CPR; while noting that her attorney Lyndon Amsterdam had satisfied the requirements for the grant thereunder.
Justice Kurtzious said she found the explanations proffered by Jagdeo for not complying with filing his defence within the 28-day time period specified by the CPR, to have been wholly “unreasonable.”
Jagdeo’s excuse had been that both he and his then-attorney Anil Nandlall were busy with preparations for General and Regional Elections at the time.
The judge said she had also found that Jagdeo’s defence contained no real prospect of success.
On this point she had noted that the “prospect” needed not be “whimsical,” but “real.” Referencing a range of case law authorities, the judge had said, too, that it could not merely be based on an arguable defence either, but that there must be contemporaneous material, other documents and evidence substantiating the defences raised.
The judge said that finding there existed material which could have put Jagdeo on notice that the statements he uttered against Ferguson would have in fact amounted to defamation, his defences of fair comment, justification, qualified privilege and his use of the Defamation Act were all irrelevant.
She said that he did not seek to verify the truth of what he had said about Ferguson.
In those circumstances Justice Kurtzious affirmed her earlier ruling granting Ferguson the $20 million award, stating that she stands to be prejudiced by suffering financial loss and injury to her character.
She then imposed $75,000 costs against Jagdeo which he has to also pay Ferguson and ordered the parties to return to court on July 28th for a full assessment of the quantum of damages.
In January of last year, Ferguson filed a $60M lawsuit against Jagdeo—the then Opposition Leader and the Guyana Times newspaper, over what she said were libelous statements made by the two, calculated to damage her character and reputation.
In her suit against Jagdeo, Ferguson sought damages in excess of $50,000,000 for libel she said he committed on two separate occasions—December 5th and 12th of 2019 for which she was asking for more than $25M in damages for each occasion.
In her separate action against the Guyana Times which is still before the courts, the former minister is seeking damages in excess of $10M against the news entity which she said had published the alleged libelous statements made against her by Jagdeo.
Ferguson had alleged that Jagdeo had made what she said were untrue statements regarding her acquisition of land.
