Jagdeo/Kissoon libel case...Full Court grants more time for plaintiff to address defence amendment

Jagdeo/Kissoon libel case…Full Court grants more time for plaintiff to address defence amendment

Mar 10, 2015 News

This month makes one year since Justice Brassington Reynolds granted the plaintiff in the Jadgeo/Kissoon libel case leave to appeal a ruling made in favour of the defence amending their case.

Kaieteur news columnist and activist Fredrick Kissoon

This was the revelation by Attorney-at-law Nigel Hughes when he sought to explain to Full Court Judges, Justice Dawn Gregory-Barnes and Justice William Ramlal, why they should not give lawyers for former President Bharrat Jagdeo any more time to address an issue that halted the libel case since March 2014.
The two Judges are presiding in the Full Court where Senior Counsel Bernard De Santos and Attorney-at-law Sase Gunraj, lawyers for the former president, are engaged to appeal Justice Reynold’s ruling out of time. This is because after more than three adjournments since last March, the lawyers are still to appeal the ruling to which they objected.
However, rulings continuously seem to be in their favour because they were granted another length of time to reply to the defence case and another length of time to lay their submissions before the higher hearing.
Attorney Hughes was totally against this additional time and strongly recommended that the plaintiff’s case be dismissed. In his view, the plaintiff has given no valuable reason as to why they have repeatedly failed to follow the courts orders.
Hughes suggested that the plaintiff is delaying the libel case because they do not wish to have any more damning revelations about how the former president ruled as an “ideological racist”. This accusation of Jagdeo being an

Former President Bharrat Jagdeo

ideological racist was one of the main reasons that forced the former head to sue the defendants, Fredrick Kissoon and Kaieteur News administration.
Hughes opined that, especially in this political season, the plaintiff does not wish to have the case carry on. The lawyer gave a rundown of the numerous occasions before Justice Reynolds when the plaintiff turned up with excuses as to why he failed to appeal the case, and to also appeal out of time.
He said that even on February 9, before the said Full Court, the plaintiff’s side asked for time to reply to the defence and that was granted.
Yesterday, the Full Court, according to Hughes, was supposed to rule on the case since the court had asked the plaintiff to put their case forward and Hughes was to respond in two weeks. When the matter was called the plaintiff had filed nothing so the defence could not answer the plaintiff.
The defence, instead, asked for more time to file the said reply and make submissions. Hughes will have to provide his response and submissions when the plaintiff lays over the information.
The Court awarded cost to the defence because of the plaintiff’s delay. Hughes requested $50,000, but De Santos requested $25,000 and it was granted. The matter will engage the Full Court early next month.
The former president sued for more than $10M compensation when he accused the newspaper of describing him as an ideological racist. The case has been ongoing for almost four years.
When eyewitnesses were giving evidence on behalf of the defence, De Santos (SC) claimed that they were giving testimonies without justification. He said that the defence cannot just give evidence and not justify it. The defence thus asked to amend its case to include justification and this was granted.
De Santos argued, then, that the plaintiff had already closed their case and to grant the amendment could be prejudicial to their case. The plaintiff then opted to appeal the amendment, but never did. Nine months passed after time was granted in March last year. Two more weeks was given in early December then six more weeks was again granted to address the amendment.
When the New Year started, the plaintiff continued to get additional time to file the appeal out of time. The plaintiff was adamant that failure to address the appeal has been an oversight and blamed criminal matters for the delays.
The resumption of the actual libel case depends on the ruling of the Full Court.