Judge recalls $20M award in default libel judgement against Jagdeo

…but upholds libel decision
…appeal to be filed – lawyer

A judgment for libel against Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo has been upheld by Justice Sandra Kurtzious, but on Wednesday she recalled her previous award of $20 million in damages to former APNU/AFC Government Minister Annette Ferguson, who had filed the proceedings.
This is in relation to the default libel judgement against Jagdeo for failure to file a defence in the case brought by Ferguson.
The Judge has since invited the parties to file submissions ahead of a hearing for assessment on damages by July 7, which will be followed by a ruling on July 28. On March 11, Justice Kurtzious rendered the default judgment after Jagdeo’s lawyers at the time failed to file a defence within the time prescribed under Art 12:01 (2) (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

Shortly after the judgment was rendered, Jagdeo, through his lawyer Devindra Kissoon, moved to have it set aside, and, among other things, contended that his failure to file a defence can be justified, that Ferguson did not meet the requirements for such a judgement, and that he has real prospects in defending the claim.
Hoping to have the judgement set aside, Kissoon said the lawyer who had represented his client, Anil Nandlall, SC, the current Attorney General, had drafted a defence before January 27, 2020, but owing to several reasons, it was not filed.
Kissoon submitted that Nandlall was preoccupied, having been responsible for a large part of the PPP/C’s campaign for the March 2020 national election, and being extensively and exclusively engaged in matters relating to elections, including acting as lead counsel for Jagdeo in election-related litigation, as well as matters involving a recount of votes.
“These tasks resulted in Mr. Nandlall inadvertently failing to file the defence, though drafted. This inadvertence was not due to neglect, but rather a combination of unusual and exceptional circumstances which caused counsel to simply be unable to comply with the time limits established by the rules,” Kissoon had said.
Although the reasons for the non-filing of a defence proffered by Jagdeo were numerous, Justice Kurtzious held, “They left the court unconvinced as to their accuracy and reasonableness.” According to her, the time for the filing of a defence began to run from January 2020, and one year later, in January 2021, no steps had been taken to cure the default.

Additionally, Kissoon stated that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the shuttering of Nandlall’s law office for several months and the subsequent relocation of files. Because of this, the lawyer stated, Nandlall did not discover that the defence, though drafted, was not filed.
Addressing this, Justice Kurtzious said, “[Jagdeo’s] claim that his counsel’s chambers were shuttered cannot be a true representation of the situation that existed when other explanations are examined.” The Judge asked, “How could his [Nandlall’s] office be shuttered for several months when, as stated by [Jagdeo], counsel was constantly in court representing [his] interest in [his] capacity as Leader of the Opposition?”
According to the High Court Judge, Jagdeo’s claim that his failure to file a defence was as a result of the courts not sitting for most of 2020 “is incorrect, to say the least.” She added, “The court was never closed totally to the public…” In doing so, she outlined the COVID-19 practice directions issued by the Judiciary that were decimated by the Bar Association.
Ferguson had filed the lawsuit in January 2020, and claimed therein that Jagdeo, who was at the time Leader of the Opposition, made defamatory statements in which he questioned her acquisition of a house lot and the construction of her home at Eccles on the East Bank of Demerara.
Ferguson, in her proceedings, had complained that the unjustified statements have tarnished her reputation.

In his application seeking to overturn the default judgement, Jagdeo had also filed a defence, in which he argued that he had a real prospect of defending the lawsuit since the statements he made about the former APNU/AFC Government Minister were not defamatory.
Jagdeo’s lawyer submitted that the defence of justification, fair comment, qualified privilege, and the provisions of the Defamation Act apply in this case. As such, the lawyer submitted that his client acted reasonably and responsibly as a constitutional office holder.
Having examined the statements made about Ferguson, Justice Kurtzious held that they were very serious allegations, as they suggested she was corrupt and involved in misappropriation. The Judge said the defences relied on by Jagdeo could not stand.
“[Jagdeo] must have bourne the seriousness of the allegations when he compounded his utterance (for) he dared [Ferguson] to sue him. His utterances, therefore, do not meet the threshold of public concern. They were uttered in the face of materials that ought to have put him on notice that his utterances were not accurate. [Jagdeo] also failed to disclose the source of the information he disseminated,” Justice Kurtzious said.
She said Jagdeo’s submission that at the time of making the statement he was “only wondering” reflects “[his] lack of knowledge of the events, if any, to which he referred.” Moreover, there is also no evidence that he sought to verify the information he sought to disseminate,” she added.
As such, the High Court Judge concluded that Jagdeo has no real prospects of defending the claim. In the circumstances, his application to have the judgement set aside was dismissed, with the court ordering him to pay costs in the sum of $75,000 to Ferguson.
Contacted on Wednesday evening for a comment, Jagdeo’s lawyer said, “I have been instructed by my client to file an appeal.” (G1)