Attorney General of St. Christopher and Nevis v Lawrence

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: Peterkin, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 01 March 1983
• Neutral Citation: KN 1983 CA 1
• Docket Number: No. 2 of 1982
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Date: 01 March 1983

Court of Appeal

Peterkin, C.J., Berridge, J.Robotham, JJ.

No. 2 of 1982

Attorney General of St. Christopher And Nevis

and

Lawrence

Appearances

Dr. W. Herbert for the defendant/appellant, T. Byron and S. Butler with him

L. Moore for applicant/respondent, F. Bryant with him

Constitutional law - Locus Standi

Constitutional law - Fundamental rights and freedoms — Right not to be deprived of property

Peterkin, C.J.

1 This is an appeal from the decision of Bishop, J., granting to the Applicant Respondent Edmund W. Lawrence a declaration that the St. Kitts Nevis Anguilla National Bank Ltd (Special Provisions) Act 1982 is unconstitutional, void, and of no effect since it contravenes the fundamental right to protection from deprivation of property as set out tinder section 6 of the Constitution of St. Christopher and Nevis. Also granted was the ancillary declaration that all acts already done and any future acts which may be purported to he done by anyone under the provisions of the said Act are and shall be null and void and of no effect.

2 On the 15th Parch, 1982, the St. Kitts Nevis Anguilla National Bank Ltd and Edmund W. Lawrence through their solicitors, filed a Motion seeking redress in respect of an alleged contravention of section 6 of the Constitution. When the Motion came before the trial Judge on the 1st April, 1982 he suggested that the application by Edmund Lawrence be heard and determined and that of the Bank be deferred. This suggestion met with the agreement of learned Counsel for all parties. Accordingly, the only matter left before the Court is the application of Edmund Lawrence.

3 The application was made under section 16 of the Constitution of St. Christopher and Nevis. It sought the following declarations:

1

) That the St. Kitts Nevis Anguilla National Bank Ltd (Special Provisions) Act 1982, passed by the House of Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis on the 8th day of March, 1982, contravenes section 6 of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect. 2) That the purported appointment of 6 persons to constitute the Board of Directors of the Bank on the 8th March, 1982, by the Minister of Finance, is unconstitutional, void and of no effect. 3) That the purported assumption of the management, control and administration of the business and affairs and assets of the Bank on the 8th day of March, 1982, by the 6 persons appointed by the Ministers, is unconstitutional, void and of no effect. 4) That the purported termination of the services of Edmund W. Lawrence with the Bank on the 8th day of March, 1982, by the 6 persons appointed by the Minister, is unconstitutional, void and of no effect.

4 In short, the application was one under section 16 of the Constitution challenging the legislation in question. The material and substantial facts were not seriously in dispute.

5 On the 13th September, 1958, the St. Kitts Industrial Bank Ltd. was duly incorporated under the laws of the country and some 11 years later Edmund W. Lawrence commenced working with the Company. On the 16th March, 1970, he was appointed Managing Director. His appointment to that position was the result of a resolution of the Board of Directors whereby it was also agreed that he should hold such office until he resigned therefrom or until be ceased to hold the office because he ceased to be a Director. This was by virtue of the provisions of the Company's Articles of Association On the 15th February, 1971, the Company came to be known as the St. Kitts Nevis Anguilla National Bank Ltd. Edmund W. Lawrence was its Managing Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors.

6 On the 8th March, 1982, a notice was issued convening a meeting of the House of Assembly of St. Christopher and Nevis on that same day. The meeting' was held and the House of Assembly passed through all of its stages, a Bill shortly entitled “The St. Kitts Nevis Anguilla National Bank Ltd (Special Provisions) Act 1982”. It received the assent of the Governor later that same day. At about five minutes before 5 o'clock that afternoon, a letter was delivered by Const. Rawlins to Edmund W. Lawrence. It was dated 8th March, 1982. It informed him of the enactment and continued in part:

“As a consequence of the enactment of the above legislation, the Directors of St. Kitts Nevis Anguilla National Bank Ltd. have ceased to hold office and a new Board has been appointed to manage and control the affairs of the Bank.”

7 The letter was signed by the Minister of Finance, and it is not in dispute that it purported to remove Edmund Lawrence as a Director of the Board of Directors of the Bank, a position to which he had been elected by the members of that Company in General Meeting.

8 At 5 p.m. on that same day Lawrence received another letter. It informed him that in consequence of the enactment, a new Board of Directors had been appointed under the Act. It then continued:

“I am therefore to inform you that the Board of Directors of the Bank requires you forthwith to surrender the keys, documentation and property of the Bank to the Chairman.”

9 It was signed By William Liburd as Chairman.

10 At 5.20 p.m. Lawrence received yet another letter from William Liburd as Chairman. It reads:

“Dear Sir,

I write to inform you that the Board of Directors has taken a decision to terminate your services with immediate effect. You are therefore required to vacate the premises immediately.”

11 The following is a statement of facts agreed to by learned Counsel.

“That same day somewhere near 5 p.m. some 6 members of the State's Police Force, including the Commissioner of Police. claiming to have been appointed by the Minister of Finance, entered the Head Office of the Company at the corner of Church and Central Streets, Basseterre, and proceeded to take certain action including purporting to hold meetings, purporting to terminate the appointment of Mr. Lawrence as Managing Director of the Company, ejecting the applicant from the premises and demanding and receiving from him keys and vehicles belonging to the Company but held by him in right of his office in the said Company, Ever since 8th March, 1982, these same 6 persons have been holding meetings from time to time and purporting to act for and on behalf of the Company, St. Kitts Nevis Anguilla National Bank Ltd., and have remained in control of the business, affairs and assets of the said Company.”

12 The respondent Lawrence complied with all the requests made of him. There was no mention of any arrangement for remuneration or compensation, and the Act itself is silent in this regard. It was in these circumstances that he ceased to be a Director and his services as Managing Director of the Bank ended. He was from then on left in the position of an ordinary shareholder in the Company.

13 The obligation for payment of just compensation is a necessary incident of the power of compulsory acquisition of property both under that, doctrine of the English Common Law as well as under the Continental Doctrine of Eminent Domain, subsequently adopted in America. The Constitution of St. Kitts and Nevis raised this obligation to pay compensation for the compulsory acquisition of property to the status of a fundamental right. Section 6 of that Constitution reads in part:

“No property of any description shall be compulsorily taken possession of, and no interest in or right over property of any description shall be compulsorily acquired, except by or under the provisions of a law that prescribes the principles on which and the manner in which compensation therefor is to be determined and given.”

14 The right of enforcement of protective provisions is contained in section 16 which reads in parts:

“If any person alleges that any of the provisions of sections 2 to 15 (inclusive) of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him (or, in the case of a person who is detained, if any other person alleges such a contravention in relation to the detained person), then, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available, that person (or that other person) may apply to the High Court for redress.”

15 The Constitution expressly confers upon the Court the powers of judicial review. As regards fundamental rights, the Court has been described as being in the role of a sentinel on the ‘qui vive’. In determining the question of constitutionality of a statute, what the Court is concerned with is the competence of the Legislature to make it and not its wisdom or motives. The Court has to examine its provisions in the light of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. The presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment, and the burden is or on him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles.

16 The learned trial Judge has given in the course of his judgment what I consider to be a fair and accurate interpretation of the impugned Act of 1982. I propose to adopt it as in my view it suffices for the purposes of this appeal. It reads

“As I interpret The St. Kitts Nevis Anguilla National Bank Limited (Special Provisions Act, 1982, from the moment that it commenced — on the 8th March 1982 — the Directors of the St. Kitts Nevis Anguilla National Bank Limited, who had been appointed by the shareholders and who had conducted the business and affairs of that Company, were authomatically dismissed and ceased to hold office. The word “Bank” then came to mean the St. Kitts Nevis Anguilla National Bank Limited incorporated under the Companies Act and all subsidiary, affiliated or related companies to the extent that thay are...