Frank Seepersad -
The High Court has ruled against a former TT Defence Force staff sergeant who alleged he was denied promotion because of procedural irregularities and constitutional breaches.
On November 18, Justice Frank Seepersad held that Nigel Joseph was not subjected to procedural unfairness, nor was he denied the protection of the law, ultimately dismissing the claim.
In his lawsuit, Joseph complained about the Chief of Defence Staff's decision not to promote him to the rank of warrant officer class II (WOII) after he completed the warrant officers' course 2201 (WOC 2201) in January 2023. Joseph contended there were ten vacancies for WOII when he was discharged in April 2023, but he was excluded from being considered because of an injunction in a related case. The injunction stayed promotions for staff sergeants.
It was the CDS’s position that the injunction barred any promotion-related steps, including recommendations.
Joseph maintained he had a legitimate expectation of promotion after completing the WOC 2201.
>
He also contended the CDS acted irrationally and illegally by halting promotions using the injunction to deprive him of his right to promotion, and acting inconsistently by allowing the course to proceed, but later citing the injunction as the reason for halting the process.
In his ruling, Seepersad pointed out that when the injunction was granted, the officers would have completed seven weeks of the WOC 2201 and were allowed to complete the course.
He also said the CDS did not accept recommendations for promotion. This, he said, was but one step in the multi-step process for promotion.
Seepersad said in Joseph’s case, completing the course was only part of the process.
He said the decision to allow officers to complete the course was not irrational.
“Training can never be viewed as a wasted endeavour or a process that should be engaged only when promotions are being pursued.
“Having regard to the resources which would have been expended and the fact that seven weeks were spent on the WOC ll course before the injunction was issued, the decision to allow the course to be completed did not defy logic and accorded with the tenets of good administration.”
Seepersad said even if the CDS accepted Joseph’s recommendation for promotion, the process would have had to be halted in compliance with the injunction.
He disagreed with Joseph’s contention that the CDS misinterpreted the injunction’s terms. Joseph had also maintained the injunction did not stop the CDSfrom receiving recommendations.
>
“The first defendant took an administrative decision relative to training and thereafter halted the promotion process. This decision was well within the realm of reasonableness.”
He also said the CDS’s decision to err on the side of caution was not unlawful.
On Joseph’s claim that promotion practices in the regiment – to prioritise officers with impending retirement and the tradition of promoting after completing a required course – created a legitimate expectation, the judge said those were “discretionary,” and tied to specific organisational needs.
“Unfortunately the stars were not aligned in the claimant’s favour and his promotion prospects were frustrated by a court order and the course of action which the first defendant adopted was reasonable.
“Timing will always be a material and relevant factor when promotions have to be effected and sadly, for the claimant, the timing was not in his favour but there is no evidence to suggest that the first defendant acted inappropriately or unreasonably neither can it be said that the first defendant frustrated the claimant’s legitimate expectation.”
He also said Joseph did not show he possessed any particular skill set for the CDS to promote him ahead of other officers because his discharge date was pending. That exceptional practice, the judge said, was logically a discretion the CDS could exercise to ensure good administration.
“The claimant’s contention that he would have been promoted either before his mandatory retirement date or retroactively invites this court to interfere with the promotion authority vested in the first defendant and also requires the court to engage in the realm of speculation.
“This is an invitation that this court is constrained to decline.”
Seepersad also rejected Joseph’s contention that he was deprived of property in the form of salary and benefits because he was not promoted.
>
Seepersad said the injunction guided the CDS’s decision, while triggering an “unfortunate chain of events,” but did not violate Joseph’s rights.
“The claimant suffered not from an unfair or improper exercise of authority or discretion but his non-promotion was due to the attendant impact of the injunction.
“The claimant, in the circumstances, has no entitlement to damages as he has not established that he should be granted any relief prayed for either by way of judicial review or under the Constitution.”
Although he dismissed Joseph’s claim, Seepersad did not order him to pay the State’s costs, instead ordering each side to bear its own costs.
Attorneys Michael Rooplal, Kristy Mohan, and Jamie Maharaj represented Joseph. Coreen Findley and Khadine Matthews represented the State.
