There’s an ongoing battle for ownership of the mega-million dollar newspaper, Newsday. The company launched by Daniel Chookolingo in 1993, is getting no media publicity because two years after its launch, the daily immediately became the fastest selling newspaper in Trinidad and Tobago outstripping the then 30-year old Trinidad Express and the mighty Guardian which was then over 75 years old. Both newspaper and their vast billion dollar media outfits have remained silent since the case was filed in the High Court in 2014.While Newsday’s up-to-date value remains shrouded, there was a valuation done a decade ago which put its worth at over $200 million dollars. Sources close to Mr Chookolingo says this is a bogus value which was given by the Steve Castagne controlled board to buy out minority shareholders to gain full control of his company.
NEWSDAY FRAUD UPDATE – 2022
Privy Council told that Newsday run by criminals
Aboud allows the crooked oligarchs to get away with murder
There’s an ongoing battle for ownership of the mega-million dollar newspaper, Newsday. The company launched by Daniel Chookolingo in 1993, lawsuit has never received any media publicity because two years after its launch, Newsday immediately became the fastest selling newspaper in Trinidad and Tobago, outstripping the then 30-year old Trinidad Express and the once mighty Guardian which was then over 75 years old.
Both newspaper and their vast billion dollar media outfits have remained silent since the case was first filed in the high court in 2014. While Newsday up-to-date value remains a mystery, there was a valuation done over a decade ago that puts its net worth at over $200 million dollars. Sources close to Chookolingo says that this is a bogus value which was given by the Steve Castagne controlled board to buy out all minority shareholders to get the company for pennies on the dollar. That was then.
In fact, the other largest shareholder, Choko Holdings Ltd (CHL) with 40%, controlled by Dawn Ford, wife of PNM Ashton Ford, which Castagne helped to install by offering CHL shareholders some $64 million dollars if Ford was in charge, has now actually been bought for a meagre $8 million (one eighth) when they were conned by Ms Ford in the biggest fraud in T&T, only rivalled by the Proman buyout of Clico Methanol. Pre action protocol letters have already been issued.
But onto Chookolingo’s latest Privy Council filing, which really show that the legal system in T&T is in shambles being controlled by a bunch of “yes” men who will do anything to keep their precious jobs /salary like the average ‘man in the street’ as they like to call the common man in their judgments but in reality they are a band of criminal untouchable hooligans who bend, twist and break the laws to suit themselves and maintain the status quo of the one percent oligarchs and their subservient politicians from both parties. People like the late great Ramesh Maharaj who once dedicated his life to fixing the system, no longer exists.
People refer to him as the character in Animal Farm (Novel and movie) who dedicated their lives to removing the brutal human overlords’ only to display the same brutality against their own after tasting leadership and power. Justice Andre de Vignes was alleged such a victim. Those are the kind of people who now run our disgraceful judicial system. Stay tuned to this site for more updates.
The following is what is before the Privy Council filed in 2022 that is centred around illegality, as illegality makes any response a nullity which all serious law proponents should read:
Grounds for application:
The appellant submits that his original PTA before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, JCPC 2020 / 0007, was curtailed due to factors beyond his control. This appeal application is to reopen the PTA. It is submitted that the Privy Council’s proposed refusal dated 11 August 2020, hereby attached and labelled ‘D.C.1.A’ will result in a serious miscarriage of justice against the Appellant by allowing the Defendants to submit millions of dollars in costs bills, some of which have already been submitted and additionally, the precedent caused by this case in the Trinidad and Tobago jurisdiction will potentially cause injustice, oppression, abuse of process and unfair treatment to other litigants.
Submissions are made under the following three (3) Headings as follows:
A. (1) Jurisdiction of the Privy Council with relevant case law
B. (2) Instances of procedural irregularities endured by the Claimant / Appellant by the Trinidad and Tobago Courts resulting in the denial of a unfair hearing.
Subsidiary to this is whether there were significant injustices against the Appellant and whether the legal procedures adopted by the courts were manifestly unfair?
C. (3) Synopsys of the original bias comments by the High Court Judge, the highlight being where the judge discussed the matter with his relative.
1. (a) Jurisdiction of the Privy Council:
Section 109(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago 1976 states as follows:
An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Court of Appeal to the Judicial Committee as of right in the following cases:
109(1)(a) Final decisions in civil proceedings where the matter in dispute on the appeal to the Judicial Committee is of the value of fifteen hundred dollars or upwards where the appeal involves directly or indirectly a claim to or question respecting property or a right of the value of fifteen hundred dollars or upwards.
The Constitution of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago Act 4 of 1976, paragraph 4: It is hereby recognised and declared that in Trinidad and Tobago there have existed and shall continue to exist, without discrimination by reason of race, origin, colour, religion or sex, the following fundamental human rights and freedoms, namely: (a) the right of an individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law.
Paragraph 5 (2) (e.) deprive a person of a right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination his rights and obligations.
Paragraph (h) deprive a person of the right to such procedural provisions as are necessary for the purpose of giving effect and protection to the aforesaid rights and freedoms.
This constitutional provision clearly shows that there is authority that allows the Privy Council to act in the instant case.
1.(b) Precedents Relied on to Show Board Can Reopen Matter:
Three prominent precedents are relied upon to advance the case where the Judicial Committee can and should act, they are the cases of Taylor v Lawrence [2002] ECWA Civ 90, the case of R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate ex party Pinochet Ugarte #2 [2000] 1 AC 61, and Porter v Mcgill [2002] 1 All ER 465, which all lay down the guidelines for reopening cases and rules governing apparent bias.
The Taylor v Lawrence case shows that the appellate court has the residual and inherent jurisdiction to reopen an appeal even after the final judgment is given and drawn up. The court had powers to enforce rules of practice, and supress any abuse of process where there was a significant injustice. This was to achieve the dual objectives of an appellate court, namely to correct wrong decisions so as to ensure justice between litigants and to ensure public confidence in the administration of justice. In such a case apparent bias had to be established.
In R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No2), (2000) 1 AC 61, the House of Lords held it had the jurisdiction to rehear an appeal where an appearance of bias was demonstrated on the part of one of the members of the committee that had determined the appeal. It was not uncommon for fresh evidence to come to light after a judgment had been perfected which puts the judgment in doubt.
Porter v Mcgill [2002] 1 All ER 465 establishes the fair minded test for apparent bias, that is, whether a fair minded informed observer would be led to conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was bias. This is reinforced by the Bangalore Principles.
Further precedents and dicta are hereby curtailed in keeping with the Privy Council’s guidelines; full submissions will be made as required.
2. INSTANCES OF PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS / ABUSE OF PROCESS ETC.
Procedural Unfairness in Court of Appeal: Unfairness permeated the instant case in the Court of Appeal as seen in the following ways:
-
(i) 28 March 2019 - JLSC Meddling : In order to get the bias case against the high court judge overturned, on 28 March 2019, the Claimant went to an attorney, Mr Ernest Koylass, unaware at the time that he was a member of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission (JLSC). On hearing details of the case, Mr Koylass advised the Claimant that he ought not to pursue an appeal because judges are entitled to make comments like those complained of in the instant case. Mr Koylass ought to have recused himself from giving advice to the Claimant involving any member of the judiciary since that compromised his position as a member of the JLSC and was also improper by virtue of the Code of Ethics, as such advice was unlawful. The Appellant feels that this meeting was part of a concerted attack against him to stop him from pursuing an appeal on the grounds of apparent bias. This matter was brought to the attention of the Court of Appeal and noted at 2 (ii), below.
2(ii) 1 May 2019 Court of Appeal Suggestion an Extension of Time Application:
On an application to hear bias against the High Court Judge compounded by improper advice of a serving member of the JLSC, Mr Koylass, the Full Court of Appeal comprising Court President Justices Prakash Moosai, Andre des Vignes and Judith Jones JJA, on 1 May 2019. After hearing the proposed Appellant’s complaints against both the high court Judge and the JLSC member, Mr Koylass, the panel did not recommend any investigation and / or sanctions against allegations against Mr Koylass’s advice to the Appellant. Nevertheless, the Moosai Court gave the proposed Appellant permission / suggestion that he make an application for an extension of time to reopen bias against the High Court Judge. Their Ruling gave the Appellant comfort that his original bias claim against the High Court Judge will be heard at last, since it was first brought to the court at a hearing on 20 February 2017. Based on the legitimate expectation and reassurance given by the ‘Moosai Court’ on 1 May 2019, the Claimant moved ahead in filing his appeal with the comfort that there would be a proper hearing of the merits of an application for an extension of time into bias. The Claimant / Appellant felt that the Court of Appeal had opened a way for him and decided not to pursue any further action against the JLSC member, Mr Koylass which he felt was counter-productive to any success at a bias hearing as the Appellant felt that the reopening of his bias case was complicated by the illicit intervention of Mr Koylass, a JLSC member, hence the permission to appeal being granted on 1 May 2019.
-
(iii) Chamber Court Application, 11 June 2019 Justice Pemberton JA: The appeal for an extension of time originally came up before Appeal Court Justice Mark Mohammed who gave an adjournment to 30 September 2019 for the Appellant’s new attorney, Mr Ramischand, to obtain a certain High Court transcript and to fine tune his submissions. However, on resumption of the proceedings on 30 September 2019, Madam Justice of Appeal Charmaine Pemberton inserted herself in the proceedings taking over from Justice Mark Mohammed JA, stating that the Claimant had expressed dissatisfaction and recusal of Justice of Appeal Mark Mohammed JA. The Claimant was taken by surprise since he never made such a request and duly informed the Pemberton Court of this error of the records. Despite that, Justice Pemberton JA continued to hear the case.
Nevertheless, Madam Justice Charmaine Pemberton inverted the procedure and entertained an initial abuse of process objection from the Respondents. In fact the attorney for the Ninth Respondent, Mr Mootoo, made a submission that was alleged inconsistent with his own position taken before the previous three-bench Moosai Court on 1 May 2019, as in his submissions before the Moosia Court, Mr Mootoo argued that the correct procedure was an extension of time application for bias. Now that he was before Justice Pemberton JA, on 30 September 2019, he argued that this procedure was flawed and an abuse of process. Therefore Mr Mootoo was clearly guilty of approbation and reprobation. Following that misrepresentation, flawed and dubious submission, Justice of Appeal Pemberton JA told the Claimant that she was going to dismiss the application for frivolity and an abuse of process as she was in full agreement with the submissions by Mr Mootoo for the Ninth Respondent. She vowed to use her discretionary powers under the CPR to dismiss the case if it was not withdrawn immediately.
Madam Justice Pemberton JA, urged the Appellant’s new attorney, Mr Ramischand, without hearing his revised submissions or waiting on the High Court transcript, that he ought to convince his client to agree to withdraw the extension of time application and re-submit it to the High Court in stark contradiction to what the Justice Moosai three-bench Court had told the Appellant 2 months before on 1 May 2019, that it was open to him to file an application for an extension for bias. In spite of that, Justice Pemberton JA dispensed with the outstanding transcript and broke ranks with her three (3) fellow Justices of Appeal directions on 1 May 2019, and followed the dubious submissions of the Ninth Respondent’s attorney, Mr Mootoo. The procedure adopted by Justice Pemberton JA, was an abuse of procedure.
She told the Appellant that the proper court to hear bias was the high Court and urged him to refile it there.
After giving those erroneous Directions, Justice Pemberton JA, gave the Appellant’s attorney a short interval to take ‘withdrawal’ instructions that she prescribed and after a few minutes hastily reconvened the proceedings. During the short interval, Mr Ramischand advised the Appellant to accept Justice of Appeal Pemberton’s offer and he will prepare the appeal to the High Court urgently. Mr Ramischand, a senior attorney with over 35 years’ experience at the bar, without the benefit of any research regarding the Directions of Justice Pemberton JA, agreed with the Court and capitulated without further verbal submissions to defend his 105 pages written submission he had recently filed. Justice Pemberton JA had seriously erred in her Directions and Rulings ostensibly as a pretext for protecting her fellow High Court Judge from serious bias allegations and the JLSC member who wrongly advised the Claimant not to pursue the bias case.
The day after the forced withdrawal, Mr Ramischand advised the Appellant that he was preparing a judicial review matter. The Appellant found out independently that the deadline for filing a judicial review matter was three months after the event complained about and therefore this bias was not an option since this judicial review advice came some two years after the high court judge alleged bias comments. The Appellant therefore felt betrayed by both the Judge and his attorney. At the time of Justice Pemberton’s JA Directives, the Appellant did not know the enormity of the hastily arranged capitulation between his attorney and Madam Justice Pemberton JA. This was now the second time that Madam Justice Pemberton ruled on the dismissal of the Appellant’s High Court case, the first time being on the 23 December 2016, with her brother on the bench Justice Moosai JA. Therefore, Justice Pemberton and Justice Moosai JAA, sat on the Appellant’s appeal on two (2) occasions as at this point. The third time was when she sat again with Justice Moosai JA, on the special leave to the Privy Council panel. However, the sudden appearance of Madam Justice Pemberton JA, to replace Justice of Appeal Mark Mohammed has become a point of contention and a fabricated pretext since Justice Pemberton JA, stated the notes on the court docket declared that the Appellant requested the recusal of Justice Mohammed jA, which never happened. It is abundantly clear that these two (2) judges were simply trying to protect their brother, the High Court Judge, from serious apparent bias allegations and the JLSC member Mr Koylass for his illicit involvement. These actions as they appear to the bystander could be intrepreted as undermining the integrity of the legal system.
2 (iv) Illegality Complaint by the Third Respondent:
(a) It was also clear that the documents filed before Madam Justice of Appeal Pemberton and before her at the hearing on 30 September 2019, showed there was a complaint before the Court of serious complaints of conspiracy and / or collusion and / or perverting the course of justice and breach of the rule of law and / or contempt of court made by the Third Defendant / Respondent.
These complaints emanated from the Third Defendant/Respondent by an email dated 6 August 2019, hereby attached and labelled ‘D.C.2.A.’, which stated her ‘life was in danger’ and ‘there was now a criminal conspiracy and my life is in danger’ because of this legal action and there were moves to keep her out of the loop, which she had to confirm before writing the Appellant. She states that Neelanda Ram[aul, who is an attorney and the secretary of the Ninth Respondent, sent her an email in error which apparently shows an alleged conspiracy going on for the past five years, the amount of time the case had been in court, and begged the Appellant to report the matter to the judge and the police.
Justice Pemberton’s JA dismissal of those damaging and serious allegations that was injurious to the Appellant, the administration of justice and rule of law and contempt of court. Some investigation by the authorities should have been ordered by the chamber Court Judges, and subsequent courts, that conspiracy and illegality were raised that were contempt of court and seem to affected the due process of law. The entertainment of illegality against the Ninth Respondent could have seen the collapse of the entire case for the Respondents due to illegality since anything that arises from an illegality is a nullity. Justice Pemberton’s disregard of this issue severely damaged the Appellant’s case and the rule of law. These allegations and complaints made by the Third Respondent now compounded the bias allegations of the high court judge and the JLSC member and there was no reason the court ought to have allowed these allegations to go without a proper investigation.
2 (iv) (b) Solicitation to Conspire, Contempt of Court by Ninth Respondent.
Besides the Third Defendant / Respondent own allegations of illegality and threats against her life, she provided the Appellant another email dated 26 July 2019 send to her from the secretary for the Ninth Respondent Ms Rampaul, hereby attached and labelled ‘D.C.3.A.’ It stated, inter alia, that it was her knowledge the Third Defendant / Respondent had issues with Ms Prowell, attorney for six (6) of the Defendants / Respondents but now excluded the Ninth Respondent. The Appellant understood that these emails sent to him meant ostensibly and manifestly that the Third Respondent was not in agreement with Ms Prowell in the Privy Council appeal or that she had significant issues with the appeal, and she was being kept out of the loop because of this. The email is tantamount to solicitation in a conspiracy to illegally deprive the Appellant of due process of law and is a contempt of court.
Ms Rampaul email referred to several issues and are highlighted below but the statement from the Third Respondent in her emails, D.C.3.A., was that she had sent the Appellant an ‘email from Neelanda that night, sent by error to me that shows what they have been up to for five years.’:
-
A ‘messy situation’ referred to with respect to the initial Privy Council appeal suggesting some disagreement and or collusion with the Third Respondent…bearing in mind the Ninth Respondent does not represent the Third Respondent and ought not to have been liaising and / or discussing the matter with the Third Respondent as this is a dispute between shareholders of the Ninth Respondent Company and the Ninth Respondent ought to remain neutral in this matter. It is important to note that the Sixth and Seventh Respondents are on the board of the Ninth Respondent and guide the affairs.
-
The Ninth Respondent is seen to be giving legal advice to the Third Respondent by referring to the appellant’s case as a “dead horse” and is sub judice and / or contempt of court and / or conspiracy to violate the Appellant rights to due process of law and the administration of justice and the substantial benefits if the Appellant were to be successful in the appeal. It was clear the Ninth Respondent secretary was also anticipating or predicting the appeal outcome and making prejudicial remarks with the intention to sway the Third Respondent and indeed the court itself who would see a united front by the respondents when this was obviously not so.
-
The Ninth Respondent Company through the company secretary took on the responsibility of a mediating and explaining the difficulties that the Third Respondent was having with the case. Ms Rampaul stated her job is to ‘ensure that the company and the shareholders are successful …’ and asks the Third Respondent to keep her informed if the attorney on record, Ms Prowell, does not satisfy her. This email shows solicitation, conspiracy, contempt of court and an unlawful intrusion designed to derail the Appellant’s case and deprive him of due process of law and justice. From the context of the email, it is obvious that the Third Respondent had been in communication with Ms Rampaul previously when she says ‘But while you may not want to speak to me. I don’t mind speaking to you.’
The emails states that the Ninth Respondent choose the legal representative for the Third Respondent (and possibly for all the respondents) when she states ‘If it is the estate is not comfortable with the representative chosen by the company I cannot correct it all I do is try ad ensure that everyone defending the matter is on the same page and is heard.’ and implicitly she had the authority to fix any problem regarding the legal representation for all respondents. If this is so, then it speaks of a grand conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and / or sub judice and / or contempt of court and / or perverting the course of justice. These emails between the Ninth and Third Respondents are relevant to the appeal and they prejudice the Appellant and grossly violate the sanctity of the courts which was raised throughout these proceedings including in the PTA at the Privy Council to which the Ninth Respondent never replied to under rule 9(6) of the Privy Council.
It is submitted that the Ninth Respondent was unable to mount any defence in court to the Third Respondent claims regarding the threats against her life and conspiracy, since the maxim of illegality defence would have applied and prevented any defence if they were part of the illegality that dealt with perverting the course of justice, rule of law and contempt of court. The illegality defence principle states that anything that arises out of an illegality is a nullity, and that illegality unravels all and the Respondents would have had their case forfeited.
In conclusion, based on all his previous experiences in the matter before Justice Pemberton JA, in the chamber Court, the Appellant felt his attorney was unduly pressured and immediately decided to have the single Judge Directions and Ruling declared ill-conceived, erroneous and unlawful and dismissed before a full three-bench Court. The Appellant’s experience in this matter told him that Madam Justice of Appeal Pemberton used an improper pretext to insert herself into the case and force a dismissal using erroneous and misguided directions that were flawed in law and contradicted normal court rules and / or the CPR.
While the Appellant did not believe there was unfairness at first by the Pemberton JA Court, when he found out soon thereafter that the action being proposed by her was a judicial review, must be initiated three (3) months after the judgment complained of, his view of the entire Chamber Court hearing took on a different perspective. Upon learning that, he was now of the view that the chamber court Judge was trying to protect her colleagues against the charges of allegations of apparent bias and other charges of serious misconduct. The Appellant was unable to comprehend but concluded that Justice Pemberton JA agenda must have been to get the matter out of the court system and out of the public domain. Her improper directive and subsequent dismissal of the extension for bias application meant the judicial system could disavow the bias allegation against their High Court Judge and other allegations against the JLSC member, Mr Koylass.
At the very least, the Pemberton chamber Court Decisions on 30 September 2019, were inconsistent with her fellow three previous Court of Appeal Judges made on 1 May 2019, and the position taken Chamber Court Judge Justice Mark Mohammed JA, who gave an adjournment and who was ready to proceed with the hearing but simply offered an adjournment for the Appellant to acquire the high court transcript. Justice Pemberton’s Decisions were disadvantageous and amounted to an unfair hearing and a procedural error against the Appellant.
The Trinidad and Tobago Constitution provides that a persons’ rights may not be infringed and under section 5(2)(e) states the law may not “ …deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations”
Madam Justice of Appeal Pemberton’s Directions and Decisions thereby curtailed the Appellant’s attorney and denied him a fair hearing on the merits of the case and it was clear she did not want to hear accusations against her colleague in the High Court which were manifestly unfair to the Appellant.
The Appellant had a legitimate expectation that the extension of time application would have proceeded and Justice Pemberton’s JA actions amounted to procedural unfairness where the Appellant’s application was frustrated and unjustly and unfairly dismissed.
The case of Smith v Kvaerner Cementation Foundation Ltd [2007] 1WLR 370) almost mirror’s the facts in the Appellant’s case where the Claimant was pressured by his attorney on the one part, and the Court Recorder on the other. Coercion and undue pressure were successful argued to have the case reopened after four (4) years. As with that case, in the instant case, no discussions or details were made by the Chamber Court or with the Appellant as to the nature and substance of the appeal to be filed in the High Court when the Judge made her withdrawal Directions. Similarly, as in Smith v Kvaerner, the Appellant was forced into agreeing to a procedure directed by the Recorder, the ramifications were never explained to him. In the instant case, the Appellant was forced in agreeing to highly technical but vague and detrimental advice and directions orchestrated by the chamber Court Judge which turned out to be highly flawed and erroneous. The basis of appealing to the full Court of Appeal was based primarily on the fact that Justice Pemberton ought to have recused herself after she previously dismissed the Appellant on 23 December 2016, and the fact she erred in law in her Directions and Rulings. Due process of law was denied the Appellant by the dismissal by Justice Pemberton JA.
2. (v) 21 October 2019 – Full Court of Appeal Says it Cannot Correct the Chamber Court:
(a). The full three-bench Court Presided over by Justice of Appeal Mendonca, erroneously told the Appellant and Ruled that the full court did not have the authority to correct the alleged erroneous Directives and Rulings of the chamber Court and the full Court “cannot begin to look behind that” at page 18 of the transcript of 21 October 2019, which was previously submitted with the PTA. The Appellant viewed this dismissal as erroneous, unfair and unjust since now both Appellate Courts did not allow the ventilation of the many issues and accusations and violated the due process of law.
The three-bench Court equally erred by frustrating the Appellant and, like Pemberton JA, was not interested in hearing the alleged bias comments and they too appeared to be covering for the High Court Judge and or the JLSC member.
(b). It was evident to the casual observer that such a reappearance of Madame Justice Pemberton JA in the chamber Court was a further violation and there was an appearance of impropriety since Justice Pemberton JA, previous appearance on an appeal on 23 December 2016, also dismissing same.
(c). There was also the contempt of court, conspiracy, and perverting the course of justice allegations involving threats against the life of the Third Respondent, the Appellant dutifully reported to the Court as requested by the Third Defendant / Respondent. This also allegedly involved a breach of the rule of law was ignored by the Mendonca Court.
Parallel to this, the Court of Appeal was told of the contempt of court and / or sub judice allegations involving the Ninth Respondent but did not agree they implicate the Ninth Respondent directly or that it was problematic. The transcript of 21 October 2019, at pages 10 and 11 and page 17 at lines 44 to 49 and at page 18, lines 1 to 4, show where the Appellant raised these contempt of court issues made by the Ninth Respondent and was told the court did not see that.
(d). The issue of approbation and reprobation by the attorney for the Ninth Respondent, Mr Mootoo), was submitted. This is a serious offence of misrepresentation and /or fraud against the Courts and the Appellant and is a breach of the Code of Ethics which the full three-bench Court refused to consider. The transcript of 21 October 2019, at page 12, lines 5 to line 49, will show that when the Appellant tried to expand on the approbation and reprobation he was denied the opportunity as the Justices of Appeal seemed to have already predetermined the appeal.
(e). The Appellant, who is not a lawyer and was acting in person, was told he could not deliver his speaking note by presiding Justice Mendonca JA. The said transcript at page 13, lines 5 to 8 will show where the speaking note was refused by the court. The Appellant was also curtailed in his submissions which are shown at page 13 line 7 to 10 of the transcript when the Appellant was allowed five (5) more minutes to make very complex legal and technical arguments.
The transcript will bear out that the court took advantage of the self-representation of the Appellant and dismissed all his concerns.
-
(vi) 22 November 2019 – Special Leave to the Privy Council Where Two Appellate Justices sat on the Appellant’s case on three (3) Separate occasions:
(a)Having been turned down by the three-bench Court of Appeal, Mr Chookolingo applied for ‘Special leave to the Privy Council.’ It was at this hearing that the Appellant found out that it was now three (3) times Justice Pemberton and Justice Moosai JJA actually adjudicated on his appeal.
The precedent submitted is the case of Stubbs v The Queen [JCPC, 0015 and 0016 of 2017], where it was held in that it was inappropriate and improper for a judge to sit on an appeal arising out of a matter he / she ruled on in a lower court and supported by the Bangalore Principles.
Notwithstanding this, the special leave Court was fully aware that one of the issues being submitted was the dismissal of the Appellant’s case by Justice Pemberton in the chamber Court and her refusal to follow due process of law and her apparent unfair procedures adopted. Her flawed, improper and inappropriate ruling which were wrong in fact and law, when she told the Appellant to return to the High Court to reopen bias, and was manifestly erroneous and flawed therefore she ought to have recused herself from the application for special leave to the Privy Council. Any other decision from Justice Pemberton JA, regarding special leave to the Privy Council panel that departed from her previous rulings, in both lower courts, would have thrown suspicion on the soundness of her previous Directions and Rulings. She was technically ‘bound’ by her previous improper and erroneous Rulings to follow them and dismiss the appeal to the Privy Council. She was also in a position to influence the other members of the panel since natural justice demanded a totally fresh panel and the maintenance of the appearance of justice makes it imperative since the impartiality of the wider judiciary itself was in question.
It is noteworthy that the special leave panel chaired by the most senior jurist, the Chief Justice, who saw nothing wrong with the composition of the panel and did not use his inherent discretion to assign or remove judges he deemed inappropriate to sit on appeals. It is evident to the casual observer that such a reappearance of Madame Justice Pemberton JA on the panel for special leave to the Privy Council was a further violation and there was an appearance of impropriety.
The full bench on the special leave court to the Privy Council comprised Justices Ivor Archie, Chief Justice, Charmaine Pemberton and Prakash Moosai JAA.
To be clear, Madam Justice Pemberton JA, was present at two (2) previous sitting on this appeal before the sitting of the special leave Court. The very first time she appeared was in an application in the full Court of Appeal filed on 23rd December 2016, (together with Justice Moosai JA), where the Court refused an appeal of the Appellant’s case to have the same High Court matter overturned. The second time Justice Pemberton JA sat was as the single chamber Court Judge on 30th September 2019 and the third was the special leave panel to the Privy Council.
Justice Moosai JA first sat on the case on 23 December 2016 with Pemberton JA., the second panel he sat on was the full Court of Appeal on 1 May 2019, and lastly he re-emerged on the special leave panel on 22 November 2019.
Meaning both Justice Pemberton and Justice Moosai JAA, sat together on three (3) panels, on two occasions they actually sat together.
Both Madam Justice Pemberton and Justice Moosai JAA ought to have recused themselves from sitting on the ‘special leave panel to the Board’ as their appearance was in conflict and or could have contamination the third Justice of Appeal, who in this case was the Chief Justice Ivor Archie.
It is submitted that this special leave panel as it was configured denied the Appellant a fair hearing contrary to the Bangalore Principles and the real perception of unfairness as justice also need to be seen to be done .
(b) The allegation of the Third Defendant / Respondent who said “There was a criminal conspiracy” was also before the special leave court and those did not get traction from the panel which involved contempt of court that had serious implications on the administration of justice and due process of law. These allegations were consistent with perverting the course of justice, misrepresentation and /or fraud. The special leave panel had every right to order an investigation into these allegations.
Therefore, the Appellant was denied a fair hearing and due process of law when the special leave panel refused to refer this matter to fast-track it to the Privy Council and he felt the Judges who sat on his appeal were subjecting him to an unfair procedure with the effect of protecting their own on the bench. Given the fact that two (2) of the three (3) members of the panel were reconstituted, the panel ought to have fast-tracked the appeal to the Board.
2 (vii). Respondents Utter Failure to Respond to Contempt Claim in PTA before Privy Council, Rule 9(6):
There was a complete failure by the Respondents to respond to these serious allegations in their Privy Council objections similar to what obtained before in the three (3) courts in Trinidad and Tobago.
These matters of conspiracy and / or collusion and /or contempt of court and /or sub judice which were contained in an emails dated 26th July (Jullet) 2019 was alleged to have been authored and sent by an attorney at law and corporate secretary for the Ninth Respondent, Daily News Limited, Ms Neelanda Rampaul. Even though the copy of the offending email, which was submitted to the Privy Council as contempt of court evidence, Macfarlanes, the Respondents agent to the Privy Council, completely disregarded and ignored the contempt complaint made in the PTA in their objections.
These emails sent by the Ninth Respondent are extremely damaging and prejudicial to the Appellant and to the rule of law and the Appellant canvassed it as provided for by the JCPC rule 9(6).
The Appellant can only conclude that the Ninth Respondent’s silence on contempt of court adds credence to their guilt and or complicity and had acquiesce the allegation of contempt of court. The Ninth Respondent has found themselves in a quandary or predicament on this issue. If the Ninth Respondent admits to an illegality, then everything resulting from that illegality is a nullity, as illegality unravels all which may result in the forfeiture of the matter.
2 (ix) Courts’ Failure to Provide a Reasoned Judgment
The Appellant was never given a reasoned judgement for the various refusals to entertain his bias allegation application. This was in breach of the rules of the Bangalore Principles.
2 (x) Failure to Provide Transcript by the Chamber Court:
Madam Justice of Appeal Pemberton JA, in the Chamber Court on 30 September 2019, failed to provide transcript of the court proceedings, claiming that this particular chamber Court does not have recordings. This is irregular and caused a grave injustice and severely disadvantaged the Appellant. This is so especially since as the Appellant acting in person, needed to rely on the transcript of this Court to properly raise what transpired in order to mount a comprehensive appeal to the full three-bench Court. This shows further bias and a preconceived position of the chamber Court since all courts in the jurisdiction from the High Court have recording equipment. This has deprived the Appellant the ability to properly raising the irregularities and breaches to the full three-bench Court on 21 October 2019and to the special leave to the Privy Council panel. This was further evidence that the court procedures were manifestly unfair to the Appellant and he was subjected to procedures that were contrary to the due process of law.
2(xi). Appellant’s Attorney Under Peer Pressure and Undue Influence: The Appellant’s former attorney, Mr Rajmanlal Joseph, was under duress and undue influence by the fact that he was ultimately being asked to critique a Judge of the Supreme Court of Trinidad and Tobago, where he himself recently functioned as a Judge is a parallel Court, The Equal Opportunity Tribunal, just prior to taking up the Appellant’s case. The records will show that while Mr Joseph had the entire legal argument before the Special Leave to the Privy Council Court, which was chaired by the Chief Justice, no special consideration was given to all the strong arguments in submissions before the court that amply demonstrated how Madam Justice Pemberton erred in law and in fact, and that there were several procedural infringements that ought to have been referred to the Board. For example why Madam Justice of Appeal Pemberton ordered a withdrawal of the case before her and erroneously instructed to refile it in the High Court or to even consider the Appellant’s preliminary arguments while his transcript from a previous hearing was still outstanding. Indeed, Mr Joseph refused to even raise verbally the fact that Madam Justice Pemberton was sitting on the special leave panel when it reviewing her own decision to dismiss the case. The events were indicative of his partiality and that he was possibly under peer pressure and or undue influence.
3.The initial apparent bias comments of the High Court Judge:
The Appellant will reply on the interim submissions filed on 11 June 2019 and supplemental 105 page submissions that were filed 20 August 2019, after the full Court of Appeal told the Appellant on 1 May 2019, he could file an application for an extension of time to hear bias. This submissions are comprehensive and deal with all the bias comments but especially apparent bias of the judge having discussions with his relative.
Apparent bias in the High Court (A brief overview): It is submitted that several instances show the apparent bias and the judge descending into the arena which were at all material times properly before Justice Pemberton JA in the chamber Court. A synopsis of what was submitted and filed from 11 June 2019, with supplemental and were therefore before all three (3) courts reviewing the application for an extension fo time :
-
The High Court Judge was dealing with a strike out application from the defendants, made remarks that the Claimant a was (a) imposter (b) Don Quixote, (c) Joan of Arc (d) a busybody. He further told the Court that he had discussed the Claimant’s case with his brother, who is not a judicial officer, and the said brother advised him to go easy on the Claimant. The Claimant was not aware of the full contents of the discussions the High Court Judge had with his brother since limited information was disclosed during the statement made during his judgment. But from the limited information he divulged, it was clear that improper discussion were held with his brother as to the potential and viability of the Claimant’s case and it is apparent that the improper discussions held with his relative a decision was made to rule against the Claimant before fully before giving judgment. Did the Judge’s relative improperly and/or unconsciously and / or unwittingly cause the Judge to dismiss the matter? This accidental disclosure showed that the decision to rule against the Claimant was pre-determined and this behaviour is explicitly barred according to the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct 2002.
The other comments where the Claimant was referred to as an imposter, Don Quixote, Joan of Arc and a busybody were extremely unjudicial since the evidence led in the case did not support any of this and two (2) of the respondents supported the Claimant.
Delving deeper, it was also apparent that the Judge was also guilty of descending into the arena and the proceedings are littered with comments throughout the proceedings. The High Court Judge’s demeanour and pre-conceived ideas of the Claimant was evident throughout the proceedings as submitted in the 105 page arguments.
These submissions show that the High Court Judge was very contemptuous of the Claimant. Indeed, he acted contrary to the rules laid down by the CPR as he refused to acknowledge the facts before him regarding two (2) defendants, the Second and the Fifth, who had conceded the Claimant’s Claims. Did the discussion the Judge had with his brother influence him to look past the CPR rules and found the Claimant’s case unworthy? It is submitted this is primary to the allegations of apparent bias.
(ii) Hurdles Erected:
Apart from the alleged bias comments (above), the said High Court Justice Aboud, also adopted a rigorous and very difficult procedure that made it almost impossible for the Claimant to secure the court judgment transcript containing the Judge’s alleged bias remarks about him. This was obvious as the usual procedure adopted when transcripts are requested is that they are provided by the judiciary’s in-house CAT Services. But instead, the Claimant was presented with digital files on a CD-Rom disk and told to have them transcribed himself by a third party outside the court’s CAT Services. The Claimant had no choice but to comply and later realised that the attorneys could not adequately mount a proper bias submission and indicated it could be raised after as bias was central to obtaining fairness and justice and cited a precedent. The Claimant / Appellant can attest to some eight (8) transcripts of proceedings before the same Judge was provided by the said Court CAT Services and is of the view that this refusal to supply the ‘bias’ transcript was planned and is part of the oppression, frustration and unjust behaviour against him so he would not raise bias in a timely manner. The continuing hurdles after the alleged bias comments were made denied the Claimant the right to a fair hearing as provided for in the constitution of Trinidadand Tobago.
Other Issues with the High Court Judge / Descending:
(iii).The trial judge mis-applied the CPR by striking out the Second and Fifth Defendants admissions and refused the Claimant’s attorney request to take up judgment during proceedings causing a grave injustice. This fell under the rubric ‘descending into the arena’ in the Appellant’s 105 page submissions before the Courts.
(iv). That there was illegal transfer of shares by the Ninth Defendant which made all the shares ever issued and / or allotted to be null and void except for the two (2) subscriber shares meaning eight (8) of the ten (10) Defendants were not bona fide shareholders. Their alleged shareholding was based on an illegality and the Claimant’s case was that anything arising out of an illegality is a nullity to which the High Court Judge refuse to accept and indeed ruled on a strike out without the Defendants showing valid transfer of shares or payment for those shares.
(v). Sufficient Evidence to Grant Extension: The claimant will show that at all times the Defendants were aware that bias was uppermost in his mind and he raised it at the first opportunity at a hearing on 22 May 2017, before presiding Justice of Appeal Mendonca and all subsequent courts.
(vi) There is no other remedy available to the Appellant to correct the grave injustice.
Conclusion:
Grave Injustice: The Appeal is necessary as there were a multitude of instances of denial of due process of law, prejudice and / or partiality or simply sympathetic position to the Defendants / Respondents, when instances of misrepresentation and / or fraud and / or illegality and / or contempt of court and / or collusion and /or conspiracy and / or violation of the due process of law and the rule of law were brought to the attention of the three (3) Appellate Courts.
Other unfair and unjust treatment to the Appellant included the breach Code of Ethics by two (2) of the Appellant’s attorneys, Mr Koylass of the JLSC and Mr Joseph, former Judge, which ought to have raised a level of concern by the courts in the local jurisdiction but their arbitrary and / or inconsistent treatment towards the Appellant caused a grave injustice to the Appellant.
It is submitted that the rules laid out in Taylor v Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ90, applies to the instant case because the Appellant was denied a fair hearing and subjected to unfair procedures.
Two documents showing apparent illegality now before the Privy Council:
First ‘illegailty’ complaint before the Privy Council
From
Suzanne Mills
To
danchookolingo
Sent
Tuesday, August 6, 2019
Dear Mr Chookolingo
My life has been in danger ever since I received a copy of the writ from Donna on July 26. Suffering from alleged bipolar disorder, that night started a series of collapses and panic attacks. You see, they did give a copy of the writ to my sister but I was not told. They wanted me to get sick. And I did. Then with the help of a doctor in cahoots with them, they sought to institutionalize me in my home. They brought in nurses to scare and abuse me. To increase my inflammation and re-damage my back. I had to figure it all out before I wrote to you. This is now a criminal conspiracy and my life is in danger. I sent you a copy of the email from Neelanda that night, sent by error to me which shows what they have been up to for five years.
Neither did they let me know about the PC matter until it was very late in the game. I got sick that weekend too and had to bring in a lawyer. The estate was probated, but not all assets recorded.
I cannot fathom this plot to make me mad and sick and why. I am a prisoner in my own home. I kicked the abusive nursing outfit out. Please show this email immediately to the judge and to the police
S
Second ‘illegality’ before the Privy Council:
From
Suzanne Mills
To
danchookolingo
Sent
Tuesday, August 6, 2019
Attached email from 9th Respondent (Newsday)
De : neelanda rampaul <neelanda@yahoo.com>
Envoyé : vendredi 26 juillet 2019 23:52
À : Suzanne Mills <mills_suzanne@hotmail.com>
Objet : Re: App. No. P001-2019 CV 2014-00489 Daniel Chookolingo v William Carpenter - Skeletal Submission of the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, & 10th Respondents filed on 26th July, 2019
Suzanne,
My apologies for writing to you. But while you may not want to speak to me. I don’t mind speaking with you.
I know you and ms Prowell had issues with the privy council matter and my impression was that it was resolved. But it appears there are still issues.
I will ask ms Prowell to send you the document as my understanding is that the other side will serve the lawyer on record and not the individual shareholder. I will like to avoid a messy situation as occurred at the privy council stage with regard to representation especially as Daniel lost as the privy council and this is an attempt to revive a dead horse. And I know this is not a matter where you are named in a personal capacity but a representative capacity.
If you don’t want to talk to me that is ok. But if you like you can have your attorney call me and I will ask ms. Prowell to ensure that correspondence you require in the matter is passed to your attorney so that you and all executors of the estate can be satisfied.
At the end of the day Daniel is making a claim and request to the court and it has to be addressed and answered and whoever the lawyer is that is doing it doesn’t matter to me as long as it is. If it is the estate is not comfortable with the representation chosen by the company I cannot correct it all I can do is try and ensure that everyone defending the matter is on the same page and is heard.
So if you want you can call or let your lawyer call me as contrary to what you may think I am not the enemy. I am simply doing a job. To ensure that the company and shareholders are successful and that the matter is dealt with in a cost effective manner. And if the estate feels it is not getting the information it needs from the attorney on record for it then I will be grateful if you let me know.
Neelanda.