Stemming from a letter he wrote to High Court Judge Navindra Singh, in which he expressed his displeasure with the Judge conducting a pre-trial review (PTR) and also presiding over the trial of his $2.6 billion libel suit, former President David Granger is appealing the Judge’s decision waiving the PTR.
In his appeal filed before the Full Court, Granger describes the Judge’s decision as being “unreasonable and irrational,” and made “at his [the Judge’s] own initiative.”
Through his attorney Roysdale Forde SC, Granger is contending that Justice Singh so did, “without a proper consideration…of the overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
He said, too, that the Judge erred in law when he made the determination that the matters which were intended to be conducted at the PTR were trial issues; and that the decision to conduct matters which ought to have been conducted at the PTR, were inconsistent with the provisions of the CPR.
At a hearing on June 16th, Justice Singh had said that while in accordance with the CPR he could understand why Granger (the Claimant) was objecting to him conducting the PTR, no basis had been provided for why he should not conduct the trial.
Following discussions with Forde and other counsel in the matter, the decision was taken that the PTR would be waived in accordance with the CPR, as the issues which were identified to be canvassed under the PTR were properly to be resolved at trial.
The Judge pointed out that a PTR is really concerned with issues surrounding potential settlement and case management protocols, but that what had been identified as PTR issues in the claim, were really evidentiary issues which are properly to be resolved at trial.
Having determined that the PTR was not needed, Justice Singh noted the Claimant’s request of not wanting him to preside over that would have been granted; but stated that he would hear the trial which was set for September 19th and 20th.
Forde had said that he had no comment to the waiver, but sought to emphasize that once the trial commences, caution should be exercised to ensure that no issue which would properly fall for consideration under a PTR, be dealt with during the trial.
Relying on the provisions of the CPR, however, Justice Singh pointed out that issues regarding the admissibility of evidence were for trial and not a PTR.
It had been pointed out by the Court that if there is no PTR, then there will be no basis for a request that the Judge should not preside over the trial.
Granger in his notice of appeal is arguing, however, that despite his letter to the Judge that he was “not consenting” as required by Part 38:01 (5) of the CPR to him conducting the PTR and the trial, the Judge nonetheless exercised his discretion “in a manner inconsistent” with the CPR by waiving the PTR.
Part 38:01 (1) of the CPR states that a “Pre-Trial Review is intended to encourage a settlement prior to trial, assist in identifying or narrowing the actual issues for trial, and deal with any outstanding issues before trial, and no further Case Management Conferences must be held after a Pre-Trial Review unless the Court orders otherwise.”
Subsection (5) of Part 38 then goes on to state, “The Judge who conducts the Pre-Trial Review must not, where practicable, be the Case Management Judge or preside at the trial, unless the parties agree and file a Consent (Form 10B) to the same effect.”
The succeeding subsection then goes on to provide for the waiver. It states, “The Court may at any time, on its own initiative or upon application, direct that a Pre-Trial Review be waived or another Pre-Trial Review be held.”
Granger is contending that the Judge made the decision he did to waive the PTR, “on his own initiative.”
The Claimant contends further that the Judge’s decision was “against the weight of the evidence, unreasonable and irrational” and is seeking costs.
Granger has filed a $2.6 billion lawsuit against dailies—Stabroek News, Kaieteur News and the Guyana Times, which he says have all besmirched his character through letters published by communications specialist Christopher ‘Kit’ Nascimento.
In his action, Granger said that Nascimento accuses him of attempting to defy the will of the people in the March 2nd, 2020 Elections.
The former president has said that the statements, which he described as libellous by Nascimento, were published by the Guyana Times on May 23rd of 2020, both in its print and online versions.
He is seeking in excess of $100 million jointly and severally against the Guyana Times and its Editor-in-Chief Tusika Martin.
He then seeks damages in excess of $50 million against Nascimento whom he said also libeled him on June 5th, 2020, through the online news platform INEWS.
Against the Kaieteur News, Granger is asking for damages in excess of $100 million jointly and severally against owner/publisher of the newspaper, Glenn Lall and its Editor-in-Chief Sharmain Grainger.
The Claimant deposes in his statement of claim that Nascimento on June 5th of 2020, libeled him through a certain publication by the Kaieteur News in its print and online editions.
Against the Stabroek News, the former president is seeking damages in excess of $100 million jointly and severally also, against the newspaper and its Editor-in-Chief Anand Persaud, which he said published letters written by Nascimento.
Granger said that on June 20th of 2020, the Stabroek News published a letter in its newspaper and on its website, written by Nascimento, titled `David Granger is without shame in continuing to defy the will of the people.’
In his 135-page suit, Granger goes on to reference a host of other letters published by the dailies in which he said Nascimento continued to libel him.
All together, the former president’s suit against Nascimento and the three newspapers is pegged at some $2.6 billion.
Through his attorney, the former president said that he never “encouraged and or supported efforts to move to the Courts inclusive of the Court of Appeal to deny the Chairman (of the Guyana Elections Commission-GECOM) of her authority to produce the elections results;” nor did he attempt to “remain in office as President to rule without any regard or care regardless of the consequences to the country.”
Among other things, the Claimant also denies that he has ever “used invented irregularities to claim a victory for himself as President and the APNU+AFC at the” election; or that he knew after the elections “that a majority of just under 16,000 Guyanese voted to elect the PPP/C,” from published Statements of Poll in the possession of his party.
