Zuliani et Al v Veira (No. 2)

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: Floissac, C.J.,Byron, J.,Liverpool, J.
• Judgment Date: 02 October 1992
• Neutral Citation: KN 1992 CA 10
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1991
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Date: 02 October 1992

Court of Appeal

Floissac, C.J., Byron, J., Liverpool, J.

Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1991

Zuliani et al

and

Veira (No. 2)

Appearances:

Mr. T. Byron for the appellants

Mr. L. Moore for the respondent

Practice and procedure - Appeal — Application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council — Original judgment determined liability for legal, professional and other services — Civil appeals to Privy Council should be of prescribed value — Whether amount of judgment is of prescribed value.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

1 This is an application by the appellants for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council from a judgment (the appellate judgment) which was delivered by this Court on the 23rd March 1992 and whereunder this Court dismissed the appellant's appeal against a judgment (the original judgment) delivered by Singh J. on the 25th March, 1991. The application purports to have been made on the authority of section 99 (1) (a) of the Constitution of Saint Christopher and Nevis which provides that:–

“An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Court of Appeal to Her Majesty in Council as of right in the following cases –

• (a) final decisions in any civil proceedings where the matter in dispute on the appeal to Her Majesty in Council is of the prescribed value or upwards or where the appeal involves directly or indirectly a claim or question respecting property or a right of the prescribed value or upwards; …….”

2 Counsel for the respondent opposed the application on the ground that (1) the appellate judgment is interlocutory and is not a final judgment and (2) the matter in dispute on the appeal to Her Majesty in Council is not of the prescribed value (i.e. $5,000.00) or upwards. I shall deal with the second ground first. This invites me to examine the original judgment of which the appellate judgment is a mere reflection and in the light of which the validity of the second ground is required to be considered.

3 The original judgment is a judgment determining the appellants' liability to the respondent for legal, professional and other services rendered by the respondent to the appellants. With regard to the amount of that liability, the learned judge said:–

“I do not intend to quantify these sums as the plaintiff wishes this Court to do in prayer 1 of his Claim but I will make the Order asked by the plaintiff in the alternative Claim. I order that the plaintiff recover from the defendants with respect to their individual liabilities as found by me, such sums as may be found due to the plaintiff upon taxation by the Registrar of this Court of individual bills of costs to be filed by this plaintiff with the Registry of this Court. Such sums as are finally arrived at upon a taxation to be incorporated in this order as part of Judgment of this Court.

I also order interest on such quantified sums at the of 6% per annum from 11th July 1988 until paid.

The defendants individually will pay the plaintiff costs of this action in so far as it relates to each defendant to be taxed certified fit for two counsel if not agreed.

What I sought to do in this matter is to adjudicate on the issues raised in the pleadings on the admissible evidence before the court, and to secure to the plaintiff, a solicitor of this Court and an Officer of this Court, proper...