Today was a big day in the Court of Appeal as judgments were handed down in several significant cases by the panel of judges. We’ll begin the roundup with civil appeal number 13 of 2009, Sagis Investments versus Radio Krem. At the centre of the dispute are fifty thousand shares in the media house, 10% of the company…shareholdings Sagis says it paid for more than a decade ago but never received. Krem’s position was that yes, they took the money but the sale didn’t go through because it would have violated the company’s articles of association.
When he heard the case in May of 2008, Chief Justice Dr. Abdulai Conteh ordered Krem to repay Sagis the cash plus interest but allowed Krem to keep their shares. Sagis appealed that decision, insisting that they didn’t want the money, they wanted the shares. Well this morning the Justices of the Court of Appeal agreed with Sagis and have set aside the CJ’s earlier judgment. It’s a dramatic and consequential reversal in the war between the zinc fence and market square and following the ruling, Krem’s Mose Hyde confessed to being disappointed but not surprised.
Mose Hyde, KREM Radio
“Disappointment but I imagine even if it was the other way around this process would still continue, this legal serve and volley so it is our turn now to see what our legal intentions are.”
Janelle Chanona,
And you are prepared to consider an appeal?
Mose Hyde,
“Of course.”
Janelle Chanona,
As far as the overarching ramifications of this, what does this do for your company?
Mose Hyde,
“Well I think we will have to consult with our attorneys first to find out what exactly this entails but I think overall we anticipated a marathon
and so we’re in shape.”
It’s left to be seen if Krem will be able to or will apply for a stay of some sort pending further judicial action. For Sagis, the Court of Appeal decision was a vindication of their position regarding the shares.
Elson Kaseke, Attorney for Sagis
“I am very happy about the decision, the upshot of which is that Sagis Investment is now a shareholder of 50,000 shares in Krem Radio Ltd.”
Janelle Chanona,
Which is what your client wanted?
Elson Kaseke,
“Which is what my client wanted all the while. So I am very happy with the decision.”
Janelle Chanona,
I gathered from the Krem side that that won’t stand.
Elson Kaseke,
“Well that is their position. We are following an order of the Court of Appeal which has pronounced that Sagis Investment Ltd owns those shares and will stand by it.”
Janelle Chanona,
Clarify for us, can you force yourself on to them as shareholders or is there an option for them, obviously they don’t want you to be part of their company so what happens now?
Elson Kaseke,
“Shareholders have rights in a company so they cannot just unilaterally say we don’t want you in our company when we are shareholders in that company. That will have major legal consequences and if they try to do that then I think the law is there and we will follow the law.”
Also in the Court of Appeal this morning, the justices have ruled that the appeal brought forward by convicted murderer Elvis Myers be dismissed. On behalf of Myers, attorney Hubert Elrington had argued that because the trial judge, Justice Troadio Gonzalez had passed the retirement age when he heard the case, the murder conviction should be overturned. Elrington’s submissions were responded to by Director of Public Prosecutions Cheryl Lynn Branker Taitt for the crown and Denys Barrow for the Attorney General. Both Branker Taitt and Barrow had conceded that mistakes were made because the procedure for extending Gonzalez’s time as a judge were not adhered to. But they maintained that Gonzalez had not acted in bad faith and moreover, the Chief Justice had continued to assign cases to Gonzalez and the judge was afforded all the rights and privileges of his office.
Elrington was not in court today so co-counsel Aliffa Elrington received the decision. As he left the court room this morning Myers told us, “they chance me but we gweng dah England.” The dismissal of the Myers appeal was crucial for the crown and the AG because if the appeal had been allowed, it would have opened the door for some thirty seven other cases, which Gonzalez had handled after his 65th birthday, to be appealed on the same ground. Justice Gonzalez’s status has since been normalized and he is currently on appointment until August 2009.
And.....rounding out our Court of Appeal coverage is the case of the Attorney General versus Barry Bowen, the Belize Landowners Association and others. When we last left the case, the matter had been adjourned to see if an undertaking made by the Attorney General would have appeased the respondents. But this morning, Bowen’s attorney Eamon Courtenay informed the court that the additional time did not bear fruit. As a result, the case as been traversed until the next sitting of the court, currently scheduled for October. But three days into the
case, there appears to be some confusion over what exactly each side is asking for. We’ll let the attorneys explain.
Lois Young, Attorney for GOB
“The Prime Minister has always stated publicly that it was never his intention to vest in the government the right to royalty that landowners are entitled to if petroleum underneath their property, he has always said that. So since we have gotten to the Court of Appeal the issues seem to have crystallized out that what the landowners are concerned about is that their royalties might have been taken away from them. That is on the papers. So what the Attorney General did was to make it very clear to the court and give an undertaking that it is not the royalty that the government is intending to vest in itself, it is the petroleum that is the actual oil and not the money that you get because you have land that has oil underneath it.”
Janelle Chanona,
So then the only sticking point will be which one is supreme, the constitution or parliament.
Lois Young,
“No I don’t think with respect that is the sticking point, I think that the landowners really and truly want more than that. What they want is to own the oil and that is what’s the problem because that is what I think but remember its stopped there right now until October. The Attorney
General and the Prime Minister had no problem in giving the undertaking because it was never the intention to take the royalty away at all. So but if the claimants want more than that, if they want to own that petroleum, if there is petroleum under their property, that is where both parties will lock horns.”
But Courtenay has a different view, and he told us that the AG’s office has got it all wrong.
Eamon Courtenay, Attorney for Landowners
“The case from the very beginning, my client Mr. Bowen has made it abundantly clear that the government has a right to vest petroleum and minerals in the government of Belize and have never or could never quarrel with that, so I don’t know where that is coming from. There is a fundamental issue here and that is what Mr. Bowen is standing up for. That fundamental issue is that you cannot in a democratic country bar people from coming to court. That is the hallmark of a dictatorship and we will fight to the bitter end to establish that principle that in a democratic country you cannot bar people from access to the court. Any landowner who has any minerals or any petroleum on his or her property and has a quarrel about what government is doing with respect to royalties or with respect to anything below the surface should be entitled in a democracy to come to court. My client cannot why a government will seek to do otherwise and that is the purpose why he has taken this appeal and that is the purpose why he has continued to prosecute the defense of that very very important principle which the Chief Justice upheld. As you know the matter is going to continue in October and we are ready with our arguments which we hope to convince the Court of Appeal that the Chief Justice was right.”
Again, the case has been adjourned until October.
