By Staff Writer
ST. GEORGE’S, Grenada, Dec 16, CMC – The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC) Tuesday said it has the jurisdiction to deliberate on the questions raised by the former Grenada attorney general, Jimmy Bristol KC, regarding the appointment of St. Lucian-born academic and jurist, Eddie David Ventose, as a judge in the ECSC with effect from January last year.
Bristol, a former temporary High Court judge, had filed his claim on December 9 last year, arguing, among other things, that “Justice Ventose did not meet the qualifications for his appointment as outlined in section 5 of the Court’s Order at the date of his appointment.”
Bristol has filed a claim of Certiorari, which means ‘to be certified ‘or ‘to be informed.’ A higher court issues Certiorari to a lower court or tribunal either to transfer a case pending with the latter to itself or to squash the latter’s order in a case.
He is contending that Justice Ventose, who was appointed on January 8 last year, “has not been a Judge for five years as outlined by section 5 (2) (a) (i ) of the Court’s Order nor was he qualified to practice as an advocate or had practiced as an advocate for less than 15 years as is required by Section 5 (2) (a) (ii ) of the Court’s Order.”
In his ruling, Justice Raulston Glasgow noted that “one could hardly be accused of proposing the implausible if it is suggested that Justice Ventose is a person who possesses qualities of a more than capable Justice of Appeal” after reading out all the regional and international academic and judicial qualifications of the St. Lucian jurist.
“However, Mr. Bristol has an issue with Justice Ventose’s appointment to the post of a judge to the Court of Appeal” he said, noting that the Grenadian jurist’s complaint is “that appointments to the Court of Appeal are to be made by the defendant, the Judicial and Service Commission in accordance with section 5 of the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court Order 1967”.
The judge said that, as it relates to section 5, “I have found a succinct and eloquent account of the history of the ESCS.
The judge said that the present ruling is not concerned with the merits of the complaints raised by Bristol about Justice Ventose’s appointment, saying, “rather, this ruling addresses a preliminary concern raised by Justice Ventose.”
“In addition to disagreeing with Mr. Bristol’s complaint that he does not possess the section 5 qualifications to sit as a Judge of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ventose has asked this court to consider whether it has the jurisdiction to even hear the complaint brought by Mr. Bristol about his appointment to the Court of Appeal.
In his 60-page ruling, Justice Glasgow said that having considered the matter, “I have concluded that this court does have jurisdiction to deliberate on the questions raised by Mr. Bristol in his claim (and) that there is no basis to find that the claim ought to be struck out as an abuse of process.
“The application is thus refused. This is not the substantive hearing, and as such, having disposed of the interlocutory challenge, the trial of the substantive hearing will proceed on 25th February 2026.
“The parties are to file written submissions and authorities on their various arguments on the substantive issue no later than 16th February, 2026,” Justice Glasgow ruled.
He said with regard to costs, applicants in claims for administrative orders are not generally ordered to pay costs of the application “unless they have acted unreasonably in bringing the application.
“There is nothing to suggest that Justice Ventose has acted unreasonably in bringing this application, and as such, no order is made for costs,” Justice Glasgow said.
Justice Ventrose was represented by the former Trinidad and Tobago attorney general, Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, and Mrs. Daniella Williams, while Bristol was represented by King’s Counsel Sydney A. Bennett and Dylan Charles.
King Counsel Michael Hylton, Dia Forrester, and Sundiata Gibbs were the counsel for the Judicial and Legal Services Commission.
CMC/ack/ir/2025.