By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

y one judge of the High Court. Despite his disclaimer of jurisdiction toentertain the motion Scott J. did express his own view that the appellant notonly had been guilty of contempt of court but also had been told withsufficient particularity the nature of the contempt of which he was accused.From the dismissal of his originating motion the appellant appealed to theCourt of Appeal; but that appeal was not heard until April 1977. In themeantime he had sought and obtained from the Judicial Committee specialleave to appeal to them against the original order of Maharaj J. committinghim to prison for contempt of court.By July 1976 this appeal had been heard and determined in his favour by theJudicial Committee upon the grounds which were stated later in theirjudgment of Scott J. on the originating motion came to be decided by theCourt had jurisdiction under section 6 of the Constitution (now section 14 ofthe republic Constitution) to grant the appellant redress for an allegedcontravention of his constitutional right resulting from something done by ajudge when acting in his judicial capacity; (2) whether the failure of MaharajJ. to inform the appellant of the specific nature of the contempt of court withwhich he was charged before committing him to prison for it, contravened aconstitutional right of the appellant in respect of which he was entitled toprotect under section 1 (a) of the Constitution (now section 4 (a) of therepublican Constitution); and, if so, (3) whether the appellant was entitled byway of redress to monetary compensation for the period that he had spent inprison. All three members of the Court of Appeal (Hyatali C.J. and CorbinJ.A. answered the question (2) “ No”; so for them question (3) did not arise.Philips J.A., in a dissenting judgment, answered questions 92) and (3) ;Yes”,From that judgment, by a majority of the Court of Appeal the appellant nowappeals once more to the Judicial Committee. In addressing themselves to thequestions arise it would seem convenient to set out the most important ofthose provisions of the Constitution upon which in their Lordships view theanswers turn.“ whereas the people of Trinidad and Tobago (e) desire that their Constitutionshould make provision for ensuring the protection in Trinidad and Tobago offundamental human rights and freedoms;12