CCJ Denies Attorney Ramlogan’s Special Leave Application

Jeremy Enriquez and his attorney, Anand Ramlogan, have hit another roadblock in their efforts to stop the March twelfth general election. The case is currently with the Court of Appeal. On Monday, the court held a case management hearing and decided that both sides would make their submissions this week and early next week. This timeline is cutting it close to next Wednesday’s election. Late Monday evening, Senior Counsel Ramlogan filed for special leave to appeal to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). However, today the CCJ ruled that the application lacked merit and denied special leave. Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay, representing the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, described Ramlogan’s CCJ application as “forum shopping.”

 

Eamon Courtenay, Attorney-At-Law

“It was very obvious because of his pertinence and impudence that Mr. Ramlogan did not like the way the court granted its order. Without saying anything to anybody we received an application by him for special leave, directly to the CCJ. Today the CCJ dismissed it saying it was absolutely without merit. The matter is before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has not even grappled with it, yet because it gave directions that was not to his liking because of timing, he thought he would go to the Caribbean Court of Justice. In my opinion it is a clear case of what lawyers call forum shopping. If you don’t like this court, you will run to a next one. It was transparent and obvious and entirely without merit. In order for you to appeal there are some procedural hurdles that has to be completed. He attempted and the court entertained him, he attempted to jump over those hurdles without completing them. The court entertained him and said well we have to file evidence. You have an application, there has to be evidence and submissions and both sides. Those orders were given. The result of those orders is that it was unlikely that his application would have been heard by twelfth of Match. He felt that the Court of Appeal was frustrating Mr. Enriquez’s claim.”