Simmons v Williams et Al; Caines v Williams et Al; Heyliger v Williams et Al

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: Singh, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 12 March 1999
• Neutral Citation: KN 1999 CA 1
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 4, 5 & 6 of 1998
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Date: 12 March 1999

Court of Appeal

Singh, J.A.

Civil Appeal Nos. 4, 5 & 6 of 1998

Simmons

and

Williams et al

Caines

and

Williams et al

Heyliger

and

Williams et al

Miss Constance Mitcham, Mr. Vernon Veira, Mrs. Lillian Benjamin-Matthew and Miss Marissa Hobson with her for the applicants.

Mr. DamionKelsick for Randolf Williams.

Mr. Delano Bart, Attorney-General in person and for Dr. Denzil Douglas, Miss Karen Hughes is with him.

Practice and procedure - Request for stay of Commission of Inquiry — Court of Appeal Rules 1968 rule 27 — Commission of Inquiry established. Application to quash appointment of Commission denied. Decision appealed. Request for stay until determination of appeal. Whether good reasons exist for grant stay — Dealing with the application is a matter of judicial discretion. Arguable grounds of appeal have been advanced. Applicants stand to lose something tangible if appeal is successful. Loss not compensatable in damages. Stay therefore granted. Order applicable to entire inquiry.

1 Singh, J.A. [CHAMBERS]:This is an application by the appellants for an Order to stay the proceedings of a Commission of Inquiry established by Letters Patent under the Public Seal dated July 28, 1997, until the final determination of their appeals. The application is supported by an affidavit from Dr. Kennedy Simmonds. The respondents have filed no affidavits in response.

THE ORIGIN:

2 By Originating Summonses filed during the latter half of the year, 1997, the appellants moved the High Court for orders to quash the appointment of the Commission on the grounds inter alia (1) of material irregularities occurring in the purported appointment of the said Commission, (2) that the appointment and powers of the sole Commissioner, the first named respondent, were null and void and of no effect, (3) that the gazetted terms of reference were vague and were therefore null and void and of no effect, contrary to the Commissions of Inquiry Act Cap. 288 of the Laws of the Federation, and (4) of bias and partiality. The matter was heard by Neville Smith, J. and on November 10, 1998, the learned judge dismissed the summonses and refused the orders prayed for therein.

3 The appellants have appealed from that judgment to this court.

THE APPLICATION:

4 In support of their application for the stay of the Inquiry, the affidavit of Dr. Simmonds, states that the Commission of Inquiry was being challenged on the grounds of its “constitutionality, illegality, in addition to its breach of the rules of natural justice and more specially bias of the counsel and staff of the Commission.” This deponent also averred in his affidavit that “If the Commission is allowed to, continue airing its proceedings on radio and television to the nation and throughout the region and the Court of Appeal finds in favour of the plaintiff/appellants, it would mean that our constitutional rights would have been violated on a daily basis for over a period of two years and our reputation destroyed without recourse.” This applicant also swears that “In his judgment, His Lordship Mr. Justice Neville Smith found as a fact that both Counsels to the Commission Lee L. Moore, Q.C., and Dr. Henry L. Browne, the latter being lead counsel to the Commission “might be predisposed to disfavour the 1st named plaintiff/appellant. The Rt. Hon. Dr. Kennedy Simmonds” and that having so found he ought to have found in favour of the said 1st named plaintiff/appellant and by extension the other two plaintiffs/appellants as they were Ministers in the Government headed by the 1st named plaintiff/appellant.” Finally, he says, that the appellants were of the view that if the proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry were to continue and this court were to find in their favour on the appeal, irrevocable damage would have been to their...