St. Kitts Nevis Trade and Labour Union v Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Mitchell, J.
• Judgment Date: 02 May 1980
• Neutral Citation: KN 1980 HC 2
• Docket Number: No. 40 of 1980
• Date: 02 May 1980

High Court

Mitchell, J.

No. 40 of 1980

St. Kitts Nevis Trade and Labour Union

and

Attorney General

Appearances:

L.L. Moore, F.C. Bryant with him for the plaintiff.

Henry Browne for the defendant with Dr. W. Herbert in attendance.

Administrative law - Minister — Powers — The question for determination was whether between two parties should be entitled to use the public park in question on same day — The plaintiff union claimed that they were permitted to use it on 5 May 1980 and a rival union claimed that they had permission from a Government minister to use it on the same day — Whether the park regulations were inconsistent with the exercise of a minister's powers of approval under the Rules of Section 53 of the Constitution. Whether the plaintiff had a right to use the park — Held: That the exercise of the minister's powers of approval were not inconsistent with the Regulations. That having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the exercise of judge's judicial discretion it would be just in the circumstances to grant the declaration sought.

Mitchell, J.

1 As I begin to write this decision I do recall the significant words of the eminent and distinguished English Jurist, Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, as reported in the London Times of 27th July, 1968. He is reported to have said and I quote:–

“Justice is what the right-thinking members of the community believe to be fair — simply that — and you and I represent the right-thinking members of the community, doing the best we can to see what is fair not only between man and man but in these days, between man and the state, and it is all epitomized in the oath each one of us takes on appointment”.

2 Those words are as true today as they were then.

3 The decision in the matter was given in an oral judgment on Friday, 2nd May, 1980. This was due to the urgent necessity of determining and resolving the issues between the parties so that they would know the legal position of all those who are concerned in this matter as the court perceived it, as soon as practicable before the 5th May, 1980 — the operative day.

4 Any decision after 5th May, 1980, on the matter would have been pointless and futile in resolving the competing claims of the St. Kitts-Nevis Trades and Labour Union who claimed that they were permitted and entitled to use Warner Park on 5th May, 1980 from 6.30 a.m. and of the United Workers Union who seemed to have had permission from the Honorable Minister of Agriculture, to use the said Warner Park on the said day 5th May, 1980 from 7 a.m. It would have amounted to a denial of justice to either of them.

5 I shall give consideration to the affidavit and supporting documents filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and the circumstances emerging from the facts mentioned in that affidavit and the implications and inferences in all those circumstances.

6 I shall give consideration to the affidavit and documents filed on behalf of the defendant and also the circumstances, the facts, the implications and the inferences arising from all those circumstances.

7 I shall give consideration to the relevant legislation passed by the Legislature of the State of Saint Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla with regard to Warner Park — as Supreme Law making authority in the State.

8 Accordingly, I shall give consideration to the substantive Ordinance, The Public Parks Regulation Ordinance, Chapter 304; the subsidiary legislation in the Public Parks Regulations, Chapter 304, cited as The Warner Park Regulations, 1945; the Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 31 of 1964 cited as the Warner Park Rules, 1984, which revoked the Warner Park Regulations, 1945 (S. R. & O. No. 9 of 1845); the Statutory Rules and Orders No. 80 of 1966 cited as the Warner Park (Amendment) Rules, 1966 and read as one with the Warner Park Rules (S. R. & O. No. 31 of 1964).

9 I shall, also, give consideration to the Law Revision (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1976, No. 6 of 1976 which was an Act to amend the provisions of certain enactments and to provide for the amendment of subsidiary Legislation to facilitate the revision of the Laws of the State and also to the Law Revision (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Act, 1976, No. 23 of 1976 which suspended the coming into operation of the Act, No. 6 of 1976 until a day appointed by the Attorney-General by notice published in the Gazette and the Law Revision (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Act, 1976 (No. 7 of 1976).

10 I shall also consider the Constitution of the State of Saint Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla which came into operation on 27th February, 1967 and relevant Articles in that Constitution.

11 I shall consider the Legislative enactments previously referred to, in relation to the Constitution — and the implications arising from that consideration.

12 I shall determine whether this particular case is one in which a declaration should be granted, bearing in mind that in doing so the courts exercise a very wide discretion. In that regard I recall Lord Denning's dictum in the case of Pyx. Granite Co. v. Ministry of Housing and Local Government [1958] 1 Q.B. at 571 when he said and I quote:–

“…. If a substantial question exists which one person has a real interest to raise and the other to oppose then the court has a discretion to resolve it by a declaration, which it will exercise if there is good reason for doing so”.

13 This application is brought by the St. Kitts-Nevis Trades and Labour Union.

14 The pleadings do not reveal that the “persona” or status of the plaintiffs was challenged or made an issue in these proceedings.

15 The amended affidavit in support of the originating summons sworn to by Jos. N. France stated in paragraph two (2) that the St. Kitts-Nevis Trades and Labour Union is a Trade Union registered under the Trades Union Act, Chapter 353.

16 A Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act can sue or be sued in its registered name, Taff Vale Rly. v. Amalgamated Socy. Ry. Servants etc. [1901] A.C. 426, H.L.

17 Registered Trade Unions have the power to bring actions, National Union of General and Municipal Workers v. Gilian [1945] 1 All E.R. 593: [1916] K.B. 81: Willis v. Brooks [1947] 1 All E.R. 191: British Motor Trade Association v. Salvadori [1949] 1 All E.R. 208.

AFFIDAVIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS

18 The affidavit of the plaintiffs stated that on 13th day of March, 1980, the General Secretary of the St. Kitts-Nevis Trades and Labour Union wrote to the Secretary of the Warner Park Committee seeking permission to use Warner Park on Monday, 5th May, 1980, for the purpose of holding what he described as “the usual Labour Week-End celebrations organised by the said Union”. A copy of that letter was attached. On the face of that letter a carbon copy was sent to Mr. Valentine Morris, Chairman, Warner Park Committee.

19 The affidavit of the plaintiffs further stated that on 15th March, 1980, the said General Secretary of the Union, Jos. N. France, received a letter dated 14th March, 1980, from the said Secretary of the Warner Park Committee informing him that permission had been granted by the Warner Park Committee to the St. Kitts-Nevis Trades Union to use Warner Park on Monday, 5th May, 1980 from 9 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. What seems to be the original letter of permission was attached as Ex. “H”.

20 That letter is headed “Warner Park Committee” and also informed that an amount of $20.00 should be paid to the Honorary Secretary of the Warner Park Committee before 5th May, and that an overtime fee of $4.00 should be paid to the Park-keeper (Mr. V. Demming). This letter was signed by Basil E. Henderson, Honorary Secretary, Warner Park Committee.

21 Prima facie, the letter is authentic. There was nothing to suggest that it did not comply with the requirements of regularity and propriety at that time and that the Committee and the Secretary did not do all that they were required to do, all they should have done to make it a valid permission. Indeed, on the face of the letter on 14th March, 1980 there was a valid permission conferring an operative licence on the St. Kitts-Nevis Trades and Labour Union to use Warner Park on the 5th May, 1980 from 9 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. A licence has been described as a consent which, without passing any interest in the property to which it relates, merely prevents the acts for which consent is given from being wrongful.

22 It is, perhaps, appropriate here to mention that in so far as the permission from the Secretary of the Warner Park Committee could at that point in time, be construed as a licence, it could have been revoked at any moment by the Committee by notice to the licensee, provided that such notice was given in reasonable time before the licence was executed. This was not done.

23 There is no evidence in the affidavit or the circumstances of the case that any attempt was made by the Warner Park Committee as the competent authority to revoke that licence of permission to use Warner Park on 5th May, 1980. Rather, an attempt was made by the purported exercise of executive authority to remove the Members of the Warner Park Committee by revoking their appointments retroactively from 1st March, 1980 even though the permission was still in force as given on 14th March, 1980 and still operative.

24 The affidavit of the General Secretary of the St. Kitts-Nevis Trade and Labour Union stated further that on 18th April, 1980 — more than a month after the date of the letter of permission from the Warner Park Committee — he, the Secretary, received a letter dated 17th April, 1980, from the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Housing and Labour, with carbon copy to the Commissioner of Police.

25 In that letter attached as Ex. “C” to the affidavit it is stated that it had been brought to the attention of that Ministry that an advertisement had appeared in the “Labour...