Waylon Joseph v The Commanding Officer of The Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard et Al

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: James, J.
• Judgment Date: 19 February 2026
• Neutral Citation: TT 2026 HC 77
• Year: 2026
• Docket Number: Suit No.: 2025-04067

Waylon Joseph

and

The Commanding Officer of The Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard et al

James, J.

Suit No.: 2025-04067

High Court

Arden Williams and Mariah Ramrattan, Attorneys at Law for the Claimant.

Natoya Moore Belmar and Savitri Maharaj, Attorneys at Law for the Defendants and the Interested Party.

RULING ON INTERIM INJUNCTION

BACKGROUND

James, J.

1 By Notice of Application filed on 6th October 2025, Lieutenant (Naval) Waylon Joseph filed an ex parte application for leave to apply for judicial review and an immediate stay of the decision to discharge him from the Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard. The application seeks to challenge the Commanding Officer's recommendation to terminate his commission effective February 19, 2026, which the claimant contends is unlawful, unreasonable, and ultra vires Regulation 6A of the Defence (Special Service Commission) Regulations. Joseph argues that the discharge procedure was procedurally flawed as he was denied the opportunity to be heard, and the decision lacked a fair evidentiary basis since his performance appraisals were never completed. Furthermore, the application emphasises that a stay is necessary to prevent significant financial hardship and the irreversible loss of Resettlement Training benefits, milestones he would only achieve if allowed to serve until at least August 2026.

2 The Court granted leave to apply for Judicial Review but declined to deal with the injunction at that stage without hearing the Defendant.

3 Lieutenant (Naval) Waylon Joseph, a member of the Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard (TTCG) for approximately 19 years, deposed an affidavit to challenge his impending discharge. Initially appointed in 2006, Joseph resigned in 2011 and was later reinstated as a Special Service Commissioned Officer (SSCO). A core factual dispute in his affidavit is his official reinstatement date; while the TTCG records it as 25th August 2014, Joseph contends that, based on the Defence Force Commissions Board's own minutes, the date should correctly be 12th June 2013.

4 Regarding the renewal of his contract, Joseph explains that SSCO appointments are typically for an initial three-year period and are customarily renewed in three-year intervals. He asserts that he held a legitimate expectation that his service would continue until at least 24th August 2026, or 12th June 2028, depending on the correction of his appointment date. Joseph points out that despite the lack of a formal written contract for each term, he continued to serve with distinction under the assumption that these renewals followed the standard practice of the Force.

5 The facts surrounding the termination or non-renewal of his contract involve a 7th February 2025 interview with Commanding Officer, Naval Captain Steve Don Polo. Mr. Joseph was informed during this meeting that his services as a Seaman Officer were “no longer required” and that he would be discharged effective 19th February 2026. Mr. Joseph disputes the honesty of this reason, characterising the decision as victimisation tied to his separate, ongoing legal proceedings regarding a denied promotion to Lieutenant Commander. He also emphasises that his performance appraisals for 2022 through 2024 were either missing or biased, meaning the decision to terminate his service lacked a fair or accurate evidentiary basis.

6 Mr. Joseph further challenges the termination on procedural grounds, stating that he was denied the opportunity to be heard or make representations before the decision was made. He argues that the discharge process was ultra vires and violated Regulation 6A of the Defence (Special Service Commission) Regulations, which dictates that such recommendations must originate from the Commissions Board and proceed through the Minister to the President. Additionally, he maintains that the early discharge date was strategically chosen to prevent him from attaining 12 years of continuous service, which is a prerequisite for accessing Resettlement Training benefits.

7 Finally, Joseph seeks a stay of the discharge decision to prevent “grave uncertainty” and significant financial hardship while his judicial review and promotion claims are pending. He estimates that the premature termination would cause him to lose between $97,472.00 and $584,832.00 in net earnings, depending on whether his contract end date is determined to be in 2026 or 2028. Consequently, he is requesting that the Court grant an injunction to halt his discharge and eventually quash the decision, allowing him to complete his full contractual term.

8 In opposition to the application for injunctive relief, the Defendants and the Interested Party filed affidavits sworn by Chief of Defence Staff Steve Don Riguel Polo, including a supplemental affidavit sworn on 23rd January 2026, and by Commander Ray Frederick, Executive Officer of the Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard. These affidavits set out in detail the contractual framework governing Special Service Commissioned Officers, the administrative process for renewal or non-renewal of contracts, and the factual basis upon which the recommendation not to renew the Claimant's contract was made.

9 Naval Captain Steve Don Polo, the First Defendant and Commanding Officer of the Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard, maintains that the non-renewal of the Claimant's contract was grounded in the determination that his services as a Seaman Officer were “no longer required.” He relies upon Regulation 6 of the Defence (Special Service Commission) Regulations, which provides that a Special Service Commission may be extended by the Minister only upon the recommendation of the Commanding Officer and only where the officer's service is satisfactory, and his services remain required. In his supplemental affidavit, Captain Polo states that the Claimant was not recommended for a standard three-year renewal but rather for a contract of a “short period of time” designed to coincide with the conclusion of his service on 19th February 2026. The First Defendant further deposes that the recommendation was influenced by concerns regarding the Claimant's “mediocre” performance, his “less than optimum interactions” with other officers, and the practical difficulty of identifying a suitable posting for him in light of ongoing legal proceedings he had initiated.

10 The Defendants also rely upon Coast Guard Memorandum No. 9668/2025, titled “Discharge from the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force (Coast Guard) No. 7068 Lieutenant Waylon Joseph,” which records the recommendation that the Claimant be discharged from the Trinidad and Tobago Coast Guard on the basis of “Service No Longer Required – End of Contract” with effect from 19th February 2026. The Memorandum specifies that the period of the Claimant's service was from 25th August 2014 to 19th February 2026, amounting to a total of 11 years, 5 months, and 26 days as at that date, which period is also reflected as his pensionable service. It further records that the Claimant was placed on 376 days' annual leave with effect from 8th February...