Court: Nothing wrong in reappointing judge

THE appointment of a judge three years after he resigned so that he can deliver decisions in several cases left outstanding was constitutional.

On Wednesday, Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux, Gregory Smith and Andre des Vignes dismissed the appeal of Tunapuna housewife Shirley Sookar, who challenged the Judiciary’s decision to reappoint former judge David Myers to deliver a ruling in her family’s decade-old property dispute.

Myers resigned from the Judiciary in 2008, after reserving his decision in the land dispute in 2000. In 2010, Sookar filed a constitutional interpretation claim challenging the legality of Myers’s reappointment to deliver the decision in her matter.

In 2011, Myers was appointed to act as a judge for specific periods during which time he delivered his decisions in the cases he had outstanding. For Sookar’s case, he was appointed for one day only and for the specific purpose of giving the judgment. By his ruling, Sookar partially succeeded since her deed of gift was upheld, but he also ruled for the other party on the issue interest to a portion of the property.

In 2014, Justice Ricky Rahim struck out Sookar’s constitutional claim, ruling that although the Constitution does not contain any explicit provision providing for the procedure, it should be interpreted widely to facilitate it as the practice aids in the proper administration of justice.

On Wednesday, the appellate court judges agreed with Rahim. Bereaux, who delivered the decision, said Myers’ appointment as an acting judge for the purpose of delivering judgment in a long outstanding decision, was constitutional.

“It was sufficient that the judge, at the time of hearing the evidence and at the time of delivery of the decision held a judicial appointment which conferred on him all the powers of a Puisne judge.

“Rahim J was right to uphold the appointment,” he said in a summary of the decision, contained in ruling in which he also analysed the law and the arguments advanced by Sookar’s legal team and attorneys for the State. Bereaux said the fact that Myers may have written the decision during a period in which he did not hold office was “of no moment.”

“The oath of office which he swore at the beginning of his judgeship was sufficient to bind him conscientiously. The oath of office simply binds the judge as a matter of conscience to uphold the law and to do justice.”

He added that based on the instrument of appointment he received, Myers proceeded in good faith to deliver the judgment which contained robust findings of fact. He also held that the allegation of bias, because the judge would have ruled unfavourably against her after she filed the action in 2010, was unsustainable.

In dismissing Sookar’s appeal, the judges ordered her to pay the State’s costs of the appeal which worked out to two-thirds of the costs which were assessed in the High Court. Sookar was represented by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, Larry Lalla and Alvin Ramroop while Fyard Hosein, SC, led Amira Rahaman and Michelle Benjamin for the State.