Orderson Decision Summary

In their written ruling of the 8^th April 2026 the Court of Appeal set aside the termination of City Council Head of Department of Technology by the Mayor and City Council in February 2016

Court of Appeal.

Wainwright Orderson

Appellant.

V

1. Mayor and City Council
2. Attorney General.

BEFORE: I’he Honourable Mme. Justice D. Gregory [he Honourable Mr. Justice R. Persaud The Honourable Mr. Justice N. Harnanan

APPEARANCES: Mr. N. Hughes for the Appellant Mr. E. Singh-Lammy for the 1% named Respondent Mr. N. Hawke for the 2** named Respondent

DATES: March 21,2025, April 7, 2025, May 15, 2025, June 18, 2025, July 15, 2025, October 6, 2025, October 28, 2025

Executive Summary.

1. Case Background:
   2015. Waynewright Orderson, an employee of the Mayor and City Council of Georgetown, was dismissed on February 4, 2016, for allegedly traveling overseas without authorization between November 30, 2015, and December 11, 2015.
   2016. Orderson claimed he had obtained approval for the trip and that the Mayor supported his account.

 

2. Legal Framework:
   1. The Local Government Commission, established under the Municipal and District Councils Act, was the body authorized to exercise disciplinary control over employees like Orderson.
   2. However, the Local Government Commission was not operational at the time of Orderson’s dismissal, raising questions about the authority to discipline him.

 

3. Council’s Actions:
   2016. The Town Clerk and Council terminated Orderson’s employment, supported by a “no objection” letter from the Minister of Communities dated February 1, 2016.
   2017. There was no evidence that the Local Government Commission had delegated its disciplinary authority to the Council, as required by law.

 

4. Doctrine of Necessity:
   1. The High Court applied the doctrine of necessity, allowing the Council to act in the absence of the Local Government Commission to prevent a failure of justice.
   2. However, the Court of Appeal questioned whether the Council properly adhered to public law principles, including procedural fairness.
6. Procedural Fairness:
   1. Orderson was summoned to a meeting on January 19, 2016, but claimed he was unaware it was a disciplinary hearing.
   2. The Court found that the meeting did not meet the standards of procedural fairness, as Orderson was not given adequate notice, a clear opportunity to defend himself, or the ability to present evidence.

 

7. Court of Appeal Decision:
   1. The Court of Appeal ruled that the dismissal was unlawful due to the lack of procedural fairness and the Council’s lack of authority to discipline Orderson.
   2. The appeal was allowed, and orders of certiorari were granted to quash the termination decision.
9. Costs Awarded:
   1. The Court awarded costs of $500,000 against the Mayor and City Council and $300,000 against the Attorney General.

 

10. Criticism of Respondents:
    1. The Town Clerk and Council failed to file submissions or participate in the appeal, despite multiple adjournments granted for this purpose.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal found that Orderson’s dismissal was procedurally unfair and outside the Council’s jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory authority and principles of natural justice.

 

Dated the 8^th day of April 2026.