(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant teacher alleged that he had been transferred from one school to another without proper notice and as punishment. The appellant instead of following a laid out procedure which would have eventually led to a decision by the Teaching Service Commission, sued under the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago for a declaration of breach of his human rights.
Held: The Board pointed out the danger of allowing the value of the right to apply to the High Court for redress for contravention of his fundamental rights and freedoms which is conferred upon the individual by section [14] of the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago to become debased by failure by the courts to dispose summarily of applications that are plainly frivolous or vexatious or are otherwise an abuse of process of the court.
Lord Diplock said: ‘One of the grounds on which both the High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s claim was because they regarded themselves as precluded from adjudicating upon it by section 102(4) of the Constitution which provides: ‘The question whether – (a) A Commission to which this section applies had validly performed any function vested in it by or under this Constitution . . shall not be inquired into in any court.’ The ouster of the court’s jurisdiction effected by this section is in terms absolute. In their Lordships’ view it is clearly wide enough to deprive all courts of jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the validity of an order of transfer on either of the grounds alleged by the appellant in the instant case; and that is sufficient to support the dismissal of the appellant’s claim on this ground also.
In all the judgments below, however, there is considerable discussion of recent English cases dealing with ‘ouster of jurisdiction clauses’ contained in Acts of Parliament. Section 102(4) does not form part of an Act of Parliament; it is part of the Constitution itself. Their Lordships do not think that the instant appeal provides an appropriate occasion for considering whether section 102(4) of the Constitution, despite its unqualified language, is nevertheless subject to the same limited kind of implicit exception as was held by the House of Lords in Anisminic Ltd. V. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147 to apply to an ouster of jurisdiction clause in very similar terms contained in an Act of Parliament. This question is best left to be decided in some future case if one should arise, in which the facts provide a concrete example of the kind of circumstances that were discussed in the judgments in the Anisminic case. The facts in the instant appeal do not. The appeal is dismissed with costs.’
Judges:
Lord Diplock
Citations:
[1980] AC 265
Cited by:
Cited – Alleyne-Forte v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and others PC 20-Oct-1997
(Trinidad and Tobago) The appellant had parked his car away from the kerb, and it had been towed away under the regulations. He challenged the validity of the regulations, which charged a high fee for storage and restoration, claiming that this . .
Cited – Frater v The Queen (Note) PC 1981
(Trinidad and Tobago) Similar vigilance should be observed as has been requested in Harrikissoon to see that claims made by appellants to be entitled to appeal as of right under section 110(1)(c) are not granted unless they do involve a genuinely . .
Cited – Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 23-Mar-2011
The claimants had been detained under the 1971 Act, after completing sentences of imprisonment pending their return to their home countries under deportations recommended by the judges at trial, or chosen by the respondent. They challenged as . .
Cited – Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramanoop PC 23-Mar-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) A police officer had unjustifiably roughed up, arrested, taken to the police station and locked up Mr Ramanoop, who now sought constitutional redress, including exemplary damages. He did not claim damages for the nominate torts . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional, Commonwealth
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.181858