By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

THE Supreme Court has denied the government’s attempt to reopen a long-settled liability case in the high-profile unlawful detention lawsuit brought by Jamaican national Matthew Sewell, while imposing a financial condition for delaying payment of a $2m damages award.

In a decision issued this week, Chief Justice Sir Ian Winder refused to grant the government an extension of time and leave to appeal two interlocutory rulings made in 2020, citing a four-year delay that he called “inordinate and unexplained.”

Sir Ian simultaneously granted a stay of execution on the August 2024 damages judgment— but only on the condition that the government pays $100,000 to Mr Sewell within 60 days. Failure to make the payment will result in the stay being lifted, allowing enforcement of the full award.

“This payment condition is intended to strike a balance between competing injustices,” Sir Ian wrote, acknowledging the government’s pending appeal and the extended delay Mr Sewell has endured in receiving compensation.

Mr Sewell, a Jamaican national, was detained in The Bahamas from 2006 to 2015 without trial. In 2017, he sued the government, naming the Attorney General, Minister of Immigration, Commissioner of Police, Director of Immigration, and correctional authorities as defendants. He claimed damages for assault, unlawful detention, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and constitutional violations.

In August 2020, Justice Ruth Bowe-Darville struck out the government’s defence after repeated failures to comply with court-ordered deadlines. With no defence presented at trial, she entered judgment in Mr Sewell’s favour the following month. Damages were later assessed at $2,011,578.38 in a decision delivered in August 2024 — nearly three years after Justice Bowe-Darville had retired from the bench.

The government initially appealed the liability decision in 2020, but that appeal was struck out in January 2021 for failing to seek the required leave to appeal interlocutory rulings. In October 2024, the government filed a fresh application for leave and an extension of time, which was the subject of Sir Ian’s ruling this week.

In his written judgment, Sir Ian found that the government had known since January 2021 that it needed leave from the trial judge to appeal the 2020 rulings. Instead of acting promptly, it chose to wait for the full outcome of the case, a decision Sir Ian called legally unsound.

“There could be no expectation that the defendants’ circumstances would improve with time,” the Chief Justice said, adding that the proceedings continued despite the absence of a defence and that the delay only worsened any prejudice to the claimant.

The government argued that it had good prospects of success, particularly in challenging the striking out of its defence and the one-sided nature of the trial. But Sir Ian disagreed, noting that the 2020 rulings were well within the trial judge’s discretion under case management powers. He found no evidence that the judge applied the wrong legal principles or that her decisions were plainly wrong.

Although Sir Ian refused to reopen the liability phase of the case, he granted the government a stay of execution on the August 2024 damages award. The appeal of that judgment is still pending and raises an issue of whether a retired judge may deliver a valid decision years after leaving office — a question the Court of Appeal is set to consider.

Sir Ian acknowledged that the Attorney General’s Office had an arguable case on that specific issue and that allowing immediate enforcement of the judgment could render a successful appeal meaningless. Nonetheless, he balanced that concern with the lengthy delay Mr Sewell has already faced.

The $100,000 payment ordered as a condition of the stay reflects what Sir Ian called a fair compromise. He also noted that an earlier payment had been made and considered the government’s prior assessments of the claim’s value.

Taxation of costs associated with the judgment may proceed, Sir Ian said, but any payments stemming from that process will be suspended until the appeal is resolved.

Mr Sewell’s attorneys had argued against the stay entirely, citing the unchallenged nature of the liability ruling and the hardship caused by years of delay. They also pointed to a lack of evidence from the government showing that it would suffer irreparable harm by paying the damages now.

The appeal over the 2024 judgment hinges on the so-called “de facto officer” doctrine, a principle allowing judgments by retired judges to remain valid under certain conditions. The issue has arisen in multiple Caribbean jurisdictions and remains legally unsettled in The Bahamas. In a 2023 ruling in Clemenza Ltd. v. Attorney General, the Court of Appeal upheld similar post-retirement judgments but signalled that any such rulings delivered after May 2023 may no longer be protected under the doctrine.

Justice Bowe-Darville demitted office in December 2021. Her August 2024 ruling, therefore, falls outside the period presumptively covered by the earlier ruling, making it a test case for applying the doctrine going forward.