Latest update February 7th, 2025 2:57 PM
Latest News
- AFC Leader Nigel Hughes welcomes any investigation into lands he acquired
- Pres. Ali defends Jagdeo’s attacks on critics
- VP Jagdeo tries to compare 75 acres of jungle lands Nigel Hughes wants to acquire with 35 acres of prime city lands sold to Ed Ahmad and others
- Greaves tells Govt ‘clean money’ used to acquire New York properties- Jagdeo
- Trump says Israel would hand Gaza to the US after fighting is over
Magistrate appeals High Court‘s dismissal of $50M lawsuit against DPP
Magistrate Alex Moore
Kaieteur News – Attorney-at-law, Arudranauth Gossai, has filed an appeal with the Full Court seeking orders to set aside the decision of High Court Justice Navindra Singh to dismiss the $50M defamation lawsuit Magistrate Alex Moore brought against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali – Hack.
DPP Shalimar Ali- Hack.
According to documents seen by this newspaper, Magistrate Moore, the appellant, is asking that the entire decision be set aside and that the matter be reinstated in the High Court to take its normal course in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 2016.
Based on the grounds of appeal, the appellant outlined that the learned trial judge erred in law and/or misguided himself when he found that Moore “clearly accepted that Ali-Hack was acting in her capacity as DPP,” when this was a question of fact which could not be resolved without a trial and the taking of evidence.
Moore also claims that the trial judge erred in law and/or misdirected himself on the law when he made a finding of his judgment based on the pleadings, when this was not proper and or permissible on a strike out application.
In his appeal, the magistrate contends that the trial judge erred in law and or misdirected him on the law, when he found at page five of his judgment that was protected by the Justice Protection Act when this was a question of fact to be determined at a trial and is not an issue which could be resolved on the strike out application.
Further, Moore added that the judge erred in law and misdirected himself on the law when he improperly considered the affidavit of the DPP at the hearing of the strike out application, which is legally impermissible, and only the Statement of Claim ought to have been considered on a strike out application.
Additionally, the Magistrate claimed, “The learned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself in his judgment when he found that the defence of absolute privilege is raised, when in fact no defence was filed in the matter.”
In his view, he said that the trial judge erred in law and or misdirected himself on law in failing to consider and/or adequately consider the stark difference between a summary judgment application and a strike out application.
“The trial judge erred in law,” he added, “and/or misdirected himself on the law when he awarded costs of $200,000, when the maximum cost on a strike out application is $30,000 in accordance with the CPR 2016.”
Earlier this month, Justice Singh dismissed a $50M claim for defamation brought against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shalimar Ali-Hack by Magistrate Alex Moore.
According to the claim, Moore on July 22, 2020 filed a lawsuit for damages based on the contents of a letter written by the DPP.
The letter addressed to the Chancellor of the Judiciary of Guyana and copied to the Chief Justice of Guyana was captioned: ‘Re: Conduct of Magistrate Alex Moore in the charge of the Police vs Marcus Bisram for the offence of murder, Contrary to Common Law.’
The letter purportedly expressed the view that Magistrate Moore has a personal interest in the matter.
In his claim, Moore said that the DPP meant and was understood to mean that the claimant was unfit to be a Magistrate and that he was taking the side of the defence in a murder charge brought by the prosecution against Marcus Bisram.
In the document, Moore noted further that by reason of the matters, he has been greatly injured in his character, credibility and reputation, and has been held up to public ridicule and has suffered mental anguish, distress and depression.
However in a ruling delivered on December 2, 2020, High Court Justice Singh noted that contrary to claims of Moore that he was defamed, the DPP, who has conduct of all prosecutions in the State of Guyana by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution of Guyana, must be able to communicate frankly and freely with the Chancellor in order that the Chancellor can properly make an informed decision with respect to a request under Section 12 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Magistrates) Act.
The Judge stated that the matter is one of public interest and as such, the DPP is granted such privileges. As such, the judge upheld Ali-Hack’s application for the Court to strike out the claim on the ground that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable basis for instituting the case.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
What Guyanese leaders can learn from Donald Trump
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News-There is little dispute that Donald Trump knows how to make an entrance. He does so without... more
OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus
Antiguan Barbudan Ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The upcoming election... more
Weekend Cartoon
