Jagdeo/Kissoon libel case…Judge grants plaintiff six weeks more to seek appeal
… said nine-month failure was an oversight
Lawyers for former President Bharrat Jagdeo have been given six weeks to file an application for an appeal
Former President Bharrat Jagdeo
out of time. This is after the Attorneys for the former Head of State would have had some nine months to file an appeal against a ruling which allowed the defence to amend their case, but failed to do so, and another two weeks to address the same action.
The failure to file the appeal during the nine-month period was described as a “tremendous oversight” by Senior Counsel Bernard De Santos when he appeared before Justice Brassington Reynolds at the High Court yesterday.
The Jagdeo libel suit is also filed against the newspaper’s publisher and Editor-in-Chief Glenn Lall and Adam Harris respectively. Attorney Nigel Hughes is representing the defendants, while De Santos and his junior, Sase Gunraj, are representing the former President. Jagdeo, back in 2011 accused Kissoon of writing libelous statements against him and the newspaper was cited for publishing it.
During the course of the trial, the plaintiff was objecting to evidence that was being provided by witnesses on behalf of the defence. De Santos was adamant that while the witnesses were providing evidence to justify the statements made by Kissoon in his column, they were not providing evidence that justified their information.
Arguments had to be laid, therefore, by both the defence and plaintiff to represent their position in regard to the justification of evidence. Hughes had stated for the defence that he would amend their case to include the justification
Kaieteur News columnist Frederick Kissoon
of evidence, but De Santos was against that, claiming that the defence ought to have known that they had to justify the evidence they were giving.
He was also against the defence’s application to amend since the plaintiff had already closed their case and he felt that it would have been prejudicial.
The court decided however to allow the defence to amend their case. De Santos decided, however, that he would appeal the ruling and he was given six weeks to do so. But this occurred in March and the case was not recalled until two weeks ago. However, the plaintiff had filed no appeal. The plaintiff had to file, therefore an amended reply to Hughes’ amendment since he had failed to appeal. This too was not done.
When De Santos appeared in court yesterday he asked for an adjournment so that the plaintiff could file an application for an appeal out of time. This means that in light of their failure to file the appeal or the amended response, the plaintiff is now looking to apply to the full court for leave to file the said appeal even after the time to do so, had elapsed.
On the last occasion, Gunraj had stated that De Santos had been engaged in the criminal assizes and that he had not been able to get guidance on how to deal with the current happenings in the case. He said that De Santos was engaged in criminal matters.
This seemed somewhat “convoluted”, and pointed to time constraints. He reiterated yesterday that the failure to appeal was an oversight and that it was regrettable.
Hughes argued that there were no legal grounds for any additional time to be given to the plaintiff. He said that the court indulged the plaintiff and after nine months they were still to do the necessary. Hughes objected “strenuously” to De Santos’ application and asked that the court proceed with the trial
After the court asked De Santos a few questions and he revealed that a motion was before the full court it was decided that the plaintiff will get six more weeks before the matter is called again. The motion before the court is for the entertainment of the application to file for the appeal out of time.
The two sides will return on February 2 when the court will hear the outcome of the application.
The plaintiff is seeking more than $10M from the defendants.
