After listening to one hour of legal arguments from Attorney General Mr Doodnauth Singh, Senior Counsel (S.C.), and Mr Ashton Chase, S.C. for Registrar Sita Ramlall, and Mr Roysdale Forde, leading Attorney-at-law for the applicants, the Judge refused to grant the application for a stay of execution.

Among other things, Mr Ford had contended that the test for granting such a stay was very limited, and he pointed out that those who requested the stay did not come within the limitation. That, he said, meant that they ought to have come on grounds, which had come to light too late to be filed.

Such authorities, he said, had come from the Crown Office Rules of 1906, Rule 206, which adopted Order 42, Rule 27 of the English Rules of the Supreme Court 1883.

On August 20, last, Justice Yonette Cummings-Edwards ruled that the dismissal of eight employees, including Supreme Court Marshals, by Registrar of the Supreme Court Ms Sita Ramlall in March of this year, was a nullity.

As a consequence, she ordered that the dismissed employees were entitled to return to their jobs as prayed for.

The dismissed employees had sought Nisi orders of Certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition against the Registrar to nullify the dismissals and effect their reinstatements.

And, the judge granted the relief sought by the applicants, who were represented by Mr Roysdale Forde, Mr B. E. Gibson and Mr Mortimer Coddett.

Mr Singh and Mr Chase met yesterday afternoon and adduced arguments in relation to getting a stay of execution for the purpose of appealing the ruling.

The dismissed employees including Marshals are William Blackman, Marcia Oxford, William Pile, Yutze Thomas, Anthony Joseph, Niobe Lucius, Odetta Cadogan and Cheryl Scotland.

The employees are contending that the dismissal letters sent to them by the Registrar gave no reason for the action taken against them nor gave them an opportunity to be heard.

The applicants had pointed out that they were public officers appointed by the Public Service Commission, and that the dismissal letters to them did not disclose the source of any authority or jurisdiction to terminate their services with the Supreme Court of Judicature and consequently to remove them from the Public Service of Guyana.

Among other things, the applicants contended that they could only be removed from the Public Service of Guyana by the Public Service Commission, for cause.

They pointed out that at all material times, particularly on the 28th day of March, 2002, the day the letters were written to them, the Public Service Commission was not constituted in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Guyana.

They also claimed that the purported exercise of a delegated power by the Registrar of the High Court under Article 201 (2) of the Constitution in present circumstances is rendered null and void because of the impossibility of effectively appearing to the Public Service Commission of Guyana.

They alleged that the Registrar had no authority to remove them from the Public Service of Guyana, and, consequently, their removals were unconstitutional.

In her affidavit in answer, Registrar Ramlall, among other things, said that notwithstanding the non-constitution of the Public Service Commission, the exercise of the delegated power by the Registrar under the Instrument dated April 3, 1962 and Order 62 of 1987 is effective as both the Instrument and Order are not affected by the non-appointment of the Public Service Commission.

According to the Registrar, the Applicants have been lawfully dismissed for various breaches of their contracts of employment ranging from indiscipline, insubordination, persistent unpunctuality, dishonesty, continuous absence without leave and willful refusal to carry out lawful instructions.

Tuesday, August 27, 2002