John B. Goodard & Company Ltd v Etienne

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Lewis, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 05 May 1971
• Neutral Citation: LC 1971 CA 8
• Date: 05 May 1971
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1971

Court of Appeal

Lewis, C.J.; Lewis, J.A.; Davis, J.A. (Ag.)

Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1971

John B. Goodard & Co. Ltd.

and

Etienne

Appearances:

W. Cenac for the appellant.

L. A. Williams for the respondent.

Practice and procedure - Courts — Magistrate's court — Jurisdiction

Facts: This was an appeal from an order of the magistrate adjudging certain goods of the appellant company to be forfeited. Whether the magistrate had jurisdiction under the Liquor Licence Act to hear and determine the claim and to order forfeiture of the liquor.

Held: The magistrate ought to have held that the proceedings should have been brought on the criminal side of his jurisdiction and as this had not been done he had no jurisdiction to deal with them because he had no civil jurisdiction to deal with them. Also it was held that the application was incomplete and no order for forfeiture could properly be made upon it. Appeal allowed. Forfeiture set aside.

Lewis, C.J.

1 This is an appeal from an order of the magistrate of the First District Court made on the 23rd March, 1971, adjudging certain goods of the appellant company, namely, a quantity of liquor which had been seized under the provisions of the Liquor Licence Act No. 18 of 1969, to be forfeited.

2 The appellant company carries on business as wholesale liquor merchants at Vigie. They had a licence which expired at the end of 1969, and for reasons which it is not necessary to go into now, the licence was not renewed until July, 1970.

3 On 2nd May, 1970, the Comptroller of Customs wrote a letter in which referred to the fact that the company had asked Government to order a special sitting of the Liquor Licence Board for the purpose of dealing with its application for renewal of its licence, and said that he had information that the appellant had a quantity of liquor on its unlicensed premises at Vigie. He required the appellant to desist from selling liquor in its possession until it had been granted a licence and said that that liquor “remains detained”. On the 5th May, the Comptroller ordered the seizure of the liquor at the appellant company's premises and it was seized and put into the custody of the Comptroller of Customs.

4 Under section 43 of the Act the appellant gave notice in writing to the Accountant General of its claim that the liquor seized was not liable to forfeiture, and the Accountant General, on the 16th June, 1970, applied to a magistrate for a summons to determine the forfeiture of the goods seized. That application reads as follows:

“To magistrate, First District Court,

I, Norman Etienne, Accountant General of St. Lucia, hereby make application for a summons to be issued as provided for by section 44 of the Liquor Licence Act, No. 18 of 1969 for the purpose of determining proceedings of forfeiture of the goods, the property of the abovementioned company, which were seized on 5th May, 1970 at Vigie, Castries, within the First Judicial District of this State, and which are listed in the schedule hereto”;

5 and the schedule of the liquor seized is attached.

6 Those proceedings purported to be taken under section 44 (1) of the Act which reads as follows: –

“Where any notice of claim has been given in respect of anything seized, the Accountant General shall take legal proceedings for its forfeiture against the claimant who shall be the defendant in the cause”

7 The case duly came on for hearing. There were a large number of adjournments and it seems to have taken some nine (9) months before it was concluded. However, in the event, at the close of the case for the applicant, a no-case submission was made and this was based on a number of grounds. One of there was that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for forfeiture under the Liquor Licence Act. Another ground was that the application did not say on what grounds the liquor had been seized. The learned magistrate ruled against the defendant, and the defendant, who is the appellant today, decided that it would stand on its submission. The magistrate amended the application by adding the words “contrary to the provisions of the Act, to wit: that on the material date of the forfeiture Company did not have a licence “, and he ordered that the liquor be...