Lincoln Bain and another (Appellants) v Zinnia Rolle (Respondent) (Bahamas)

Hearing listed

Case summary
Appeal
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2024/0014

Jurisdiction

Bahamas

Parties

Appellant(s)

(1) Lincoln Bain

(2) Bani Shoe Warehouse Co Ltd

Respondent(s)

Zinnia Rolle

Issue

Did the delay between the hearing of evidence and the Supreme Court’s judgment (i) breach the Appellants’ right to a fair trial within a reasonable time or (ii) affect the judge’s ability to deal properly with the issues?

Facts

The First Appellant entered into a contract with the Respondent in 2010, whereby the First Appellant was to hold $40,000 of the Respondent’s money on trust for three years. The Second Appellant, a retail and shoe company, also entered into a contract with the Respondent in 2010, under which the Respondent would supply merchandise to the Second Appellant in return for a share of the profits. According to the Respondent, the First Appellant was also the signatory of that contract. The Respondent alleges that she did not receive the amounts owed under either contract. She claimed damages for breach of contract by way of a writ of summons in May 2015. The Appellants entered a joint defence, alleging that the First Appellant’s signature had been forged. Evidence was heard across two days in July and August 2017, with three witnesses cross-examined. The Supreme Court handed down its judgment on 6 December 2021 (with an addendum judgment on costs the following month). The essence of the judgment was that the judge did not accept the evidence that any signatures were forged and instead accepted the Respondent’s evidence that the contracts were properly signed. The Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the inordinate delay in the delivery of the Supreme Court’s judgment rendered the judge unable to deal properly with the issues and breached their constitutional right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, but set aside the addendum judgment in its entirety. The Appellants now appeal as of right to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.