Samaroo v the Principal of Point Fortin Junior Secondary School et Al

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Jamadar, J.
• Judgment Date: 02 April 2001
• Neutral Citation: TT 2001 HC 60
• Docket Number: H.C.A. No. S. Cv.536 of 1998
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 02 April 2001

High Court

Jamadar, J.

H.C.A. No. S. Cv.536 of 1998

Samaroo

and

The Principal of Point Fortin Junior Secondary School et al

Appearances:

Mr. N. Mohammed instructed by E. K. Roopnarine for the plaintiff.

Mr. B. Shepherd instructed by Mrs. Chai Hong for the respondent.

Damages - Suspension of applicant — Quantum — Applicant sought judicial review of decision of respondents to suspend him and continue his suspension from school — Whether suspension unreasonable or illegal — Whether proper inquiries made pursuant to s. 44(2) of Education Act Cap. 3 9 — Whether applicant entitled to damages — Appropriate quantum — Conditions for award of damages — Millette v. McNicolls C.A. 155 of 1995 considered — Humiliation, embarrassment and distress suffered by applicant — Damages awarded in sum of $30,000.00.

Jamadar, J.

INTRODUCTION

1 On the 5th June, 1998 the applicant through his mother was granted leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions) of the respondents to suspend him and/or continue his suspension from the Point Fortin Junior secondary School, commencing on the 10th September, 1997. On the 3rd July, 1998 the following order was entered by consent:–

1

That the decision of the second respondent to continue the suspension of the applicant from attending at the POINT FORTIN JUNIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL from the 16th September, 1997 was unreasonable and/or illegal. 2. The continuing suspension of the applicant without proper inquiries being made as is required under section 44(2) of the Education Act Chapter 39:01 of the Law of Trinidad and Tobago was illegal. 3. That the questions of damages and/or compensation payable to the applicant and the court's jurisdiction to award damages and/or compensation in judicial review proceedings be referred to a Judge in Chambers. 4. That the costs of these proceedings be paid by the respondent to the applicant to be taxed in default of agreement fit for Advocate Attorney at Law.

2 Before this Court it was agreed that the only issues to be determined, given the decision of the Court of Appeal in Millette v. Mc Nieolls C.A. 155 of 1995, were:–

1

Whether the applicant is entitled to damages, and 2. If so, then what is the appropriate quantum.

FACTS

3 On 23rd August, 1997 the applicant, who was then aged thirteen (date of birth, 26th October, 1984) and a Form 2 student of Point Fortin Junior secondary School, was charged for breaking and entering certain premises. This occurred during the school vacation. School reopened on the 8th September, 1997. On the 10th September, 1997 the Principal of the school purporting to act under the powers conferred by sections 43 and 44(1) of the Education Act, Ch. 39:01, suspended the applicant ‘immediately, pending an investigation… and a final determination by the Ministry of Education,’ for seven days from the 10th September, 1997 to the 16th September, 1997.

4 The Principal having applied to the Ministry for an extension of the suspension of the applicant and it seems having received same on the said 10th September, 1997, extended the suspension indefinitely to enable proper inquiries to be made. However, no investigations or inquiries were ever made. In fact neither the applicant nor his mother were ever informed of any inquiries or given the opportunity to be heard in relation to either the charges laid against the applicant or the suspensions.

5 Thereafter, on or about the 23rd January, 1998 the applicant's attorney met with the school principal to discuss the suspension, who undertook to speak with the relevant personnel in the Ministry of Education about the matter. It would appear that nothing came out of that meeting, as on the 10th March, 1998 the applicant's attorney wrote to the Minister of Education complaining that: ‘To date the suspension has not been removed nor has there been any enquiry by your Ministry,’ and threatening to take legal proceedings if the applicant was not reinstated within seven days. This letter was hand delivered on the 4th March, 1998.

6 Then, on the 28th May, 1998 the applicant's attorney wrote the principal requesting certain information relevant to the suspension. That letter was refused by the principal. As a consequence, a letter in similar terms dated 29th May, 1998 was hand delivered to the office of the Ministry of Education in San Fernando. However, up to the 4th June, 1998 there was no reply or response to any of these inquiries or letters written on behalf of the applicant.

7 On the 5th June, 1998 these proceedings were filed. On the 8th June, 1998 the statement herein was amended. On the 10th June, 1998 leave was granted to bring these proceedings. Then, on the 16th June, 1998 the Ministry ordered the reinstatement of the applicant with immediate effect, never having conducted any inquiries. That letter of reinstatement was delivered to the applicant's mother on the said 16th June, 1998, which incidentally was during end of term examinations and a few weeks before the end of that academic year, which ended on 10th July, 1998.

8 Finally, on the 3rd July, 1998 the above stated consent order was entered in these proceedings.

THE LAW

9 It is agreed that in order for the applicant to be awarded damages in judicial review proceedings, three pre-conditions must be satisfied (see Millette's case at pp. 7-8). These are:

1

there must be a claim for damages included in the statement, which is a pleading requirement. 2. the claim for damages must arise from the same matter that forms the basis of the application for judicial review. 3. the...