Full Court to hear application seeking to overturn ruling on Royston King’s dismissal

Jan 11, 2020 News

---

On Monday, at 14:00hrs, an application by the Local Government Commission (LGC) to quash a ruling by the High Court which nullified the dismissal of former Town Clerk of Georgetown, Royston King, comes up for hearing at the Demerara Full Court before Justices Franklyn Holder and Nareshwar Harnanan.

On September 13, 2019, High Court Judge Simone Morris-Ramlall, while declaring that the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) which recommended that King be sacked as Town Clerk was null, void and of no legal effect, ruled that the LGC acted unlawfully in dismissing him from the post. In light of the ruling, King was awarded $200,000 in court costs.
In its attempts to have the judge’s decisions overturned, the LGC highlighted what it claims to be several errors in law in her ruling. One of the errors highlighted in its Notice of Appeal is that the judge failed to consider or give adequate consideration to the fact that even at the stage of his application for judicial review at the High Court, King could not explain the allegations of misconduct leveled against him by the LGC or the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) conducted into the affairs of the Mayor and City Council (M&CC).
The LGC’s lawyers, Ronald Burch-Smith and Everton Singh-Lammy, are also contending that the judge committed errors of law when she found that the LGC did not have the authority to delegate its powers to a CoI.
According to the lawyers, “The learned trial judge erred in law and fact in finding that the Local Government Commission had delegated its authority to the Commission of Inquiry to enquire into the allegations against Mr. Royston King.”
The LGC is further contending that the trial judge erred in law and fact by ignoring the evidence of the Local Government Commission had given King an opportunity to be heard before making a determination in his matter. It argues that the judge also erred, having found errors of procedure in the hearing of the Local Government Commission in exercising her discretion in granting the reliefs sought by King.
Apart from ruling that the LGC acted unlawfully in firing King, the Judge ruled that it had no legal authority to delegate its investigator powers to a Commission of Inquiry (CoI), as the Commission of Inquiry is not part of the LGC or the local government body. In the circumstances, the judge found that the setting up, investigations, findings and recommendations of the CoI are null, void and of no legal effect.
Among other things, Justice Morris-Ramlall, in her judgment, noted that the LGC acted blindly upon the recommendations of the CoI when it instituted disciplinary charges against King and later terminated his services. The Judge said that there was no evidence to show that the LGC conducted any independent investigations.
The CoI was conducted from September 24, to November 30, 2018, and headed by retired Judge Cecil Kennard. The CoI in its report cited King for gross misconduct, abuse of office, recklessness, dishonesty, conspiracy, and misappropriation of funds.
Among the recommendations made by the CoI was for King to be dismissed. King was sent on administrative leave on September 21, 2018, and subsequently had his services terminated.
King, through his lawyers Maxwell Edwards and Patrice Henry, had sought several orders from the High Court; one being for him to be reinstated to the post of Town Clerk. The, judge, however, refused to grant such an order. The ruling by Justice Morris-Ramlall meant that King remains Town Clerk with the status quo being of September 21, 2018 when he was ordered to proceed on administrative leave.
His lawyers said that King, who attains the statutory age of retirement in January 2020, is still entitled to all the benefits that come with the post. In his Fixed Date Application (FDA) filed at the High Court, King, among other things, said that he protested the setting up and finding of the CoI.
According to King, “I attended the aforesaid Commission of Inquiry, under protest, since it was unlawfully appointed and in breach of the Local Government Commission Act (supra) Laws of Guyana.”
He argued that inadmissible hearsay evidence was accepted and admitted in the CoI, which rendered his dismissal nugatory.
Among other things, King said that he was fired without being given a hearing by the LGC. He contended that the allegations leveled against him were criminal in nature, but unlike the universally unaccepted principle of equality, transparency and equity, the LGC acted as judge, jury and executioner in its own cause, as opposed to calling in the police and obtaining advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions, since state assets and monies were allegedly involved.
In an affidavit, King said that he began working at age 24 with the M&CC permanently and continuously from 1989, as an Environmental Health Assistant, up until he became Press Officer, then later Public Relations Officer, and finally Town Clerk at the time of his summary dismissal..
He added, “My last appointment in the municipality was on July 14, 2015 in the capacity of Town Clerk for the city of Georgetown. While working in this capacity, many challenges would have confronted the Council and those which are relevant to my appointment.
“I would devise all legal and lawful methods to discharge my functions earnestly, conscientiously and sincerely in the best interest of the Mayor and City Council of Georgetown.”
King, among other things, stated that since his unlawful dismissal, he was embarrassed, unemployed and deprived of his pension rights. Further to this, he says that he is not a contracted employee and as such has a legitimate expectation to be treated fairly, equally and in conformity with Article 149A of the Constitution, otherwise his right to work will be violated.

---

---