Fight for Town Clerk…Sooba, King asked to justify appointments

May 23, 2014 News

---

The Court of Appeal will soon be ruling on the High Court ruling of Chief Justice Ian Chang, which says that Carol Sooba is to remain de facto Town Clerk of Georgetown, despite the Local Government Minister having no power to hire her. He also granted a quo warranto in favour of Town Clerk Carol Sooba, effectively removing Royston King as the City Council-appointed Town Clerk.

However, another judge, Justice Diana Insanally, has begun hearing a quo warranto in favour of Royston King, thus challenging Carol Sooba’s continued rule as Town Clerk.
Nigel Hughes had filed a writ of quo warranto demanding that Sooba show authority for her appointment to the post of Town Clerk (ag).
Attorneys representing Sooba are expected to file an affidavit in response to the order that Sooba to explain the basis of her appointment as Town Clerk (Ag) and why she should remain in that position.
The hearing of the quo warranto against Sooba is expected to continue on June 2.
The quo warranto application to the Chief Justice was made by Attorney Roysdale Forde on Sooba’s behalf. Attorney Adrian Smith and Attorney General Anil Nandlall are also representing Sooba.
Attorney Nigel Hughes is representing Royston King who is challenging Sooba’s appointment.
Forde’s arguments were grounded on three issues; that should the stay not be granted then there would be interference in the status quo.
He said that the High Court has already ruled that Sooba could function as the de facto secretary to the Mayor and City Council. However, by the Councillors voting for King to replace her, Forde said it would interfere with the status quo while the matter is being appealed before the court.
The status quo, he urged, has to be preserved in the continuation of Sooba exercising the functions as Town Clerk until the Appeal is concluded.
Not granting the stay will also ruin Sooba, Forde contended. He said irreparable harm would be caused and this does not only mean the loss of salary or other monetary benefits but also, not allowing her to function as the Town Clerk adds to her ruination.
Sooba should be allowed to function until the conclusion of the Appeal, Forde argued.
Additionally, Forde charged that should the stay not be granted, then the Appeal itself would also be nugatory (of no value or importance). The lawyer said that the Appeal would be useless and ineffective if the Mayor and Councilors are allowed to push Royston King to act at City secretary, while the appeal is pending and while their actions contradict the April ruling of the High Court.
King’s Attorney feels differently. Hughes explained that the interference of the status quo is no ground on which a stay could be granted. He pointed out that on most occasions the status quo is interfered with, for example, cases where persons are rewarded.  Hughes went on that while the status quo may be a factor in certain circumstances; it is not a ground on which a stay of execution could be granted.
As it relates to irreparable damage, Hughes questioned what is there to affect Sooba, since she will not be out of a job -because she was taken from one post and placed in the other to perform the function of City secretary.
Hughes said that Sooba cannot cry personal loss since she has no individual right to the office and will therefore suffer no personal loss. Hughes added, too, that Sooba would not be ruined since she has no right to the office, since she is a de facto Town Clerk and only holds the position by virtue of the Local Government Minister.
Hughes also challenged the argument that the decision of the Appeal itself would be nugatory.

In another court matter stemming from the Town Clerk fiasco, Attorney Nigel Hughes has asked Chief Justice Chang to recuse himself from the order he granted to stop City Hall from having King replace Sooba as the Town Clerk (ag).
Hughes reminded the CJ that he did not hear the quo warranto matter (a third court case stemming from the Town Clerk fiasco) last week. That quo warranto seeks to directly challenge Sooba’s appointment as Town Clerk de facto.
Hughes reminded also that a quo warranto was filed in keeping with the CJ’s April ruling to challenge the appointment. Hughes went on that the quo warranto was filed before Sooba sought the order against the Council, yet the CJ opted to hear Sooba’s matter to the exclusion of Royston King’s.
On those grounds along with others made by Hughes, he pointed to what may be a perception and possible conflict within the two matters. He repeated his appeal for the CJ to recuse himself from hearing the order against City Hall.
Hughes in that case was representing the City Council; while Attorney Keisha Chase represented Sooba. Chase had no difficulty with the CJ hearing the matter given that the two cases stem from the same matter but involve different parties.
The CJ has also argued that the matters speak to different people, despite it stemming from the same matter. He has refused the quo warranto since his ruling is being appealed.
In the meantime, the CJ has chosen not to recuse himself from the order and has asked the parties to prepare their affidavit in answer and reply. The matter will be called again on June 5.

---

---