@article{Chuks Okpaluba_2021, title={CURRENT ISSUES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DAMAGES LITIGATION: A CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF RECENT COMMONWEALTH DECISIONS}, volume={34}, url={https://obiter.mandela.ac.za/article/view/12036}, DOI={10.17159/obiter.v34i2.12036}, abstractNote={<p>The Privy Council judgments in <em>James v Attorney General</em> [2010] UKPC 23 and <em>Graham v Police Service Commission</em> [2011] UKPC 46 have advanced the constitutional damages jurisprudence not only in Trinidad and Tobago but also the Commonwealth since <em>Attorney General v Ramanoop</em> [2005] 2 WLR 1324 (PC). In their recent decision in <em>Seepersad v Attorney General</em> [2012] UKPC 4, their Lordships answered two crucial questions hitherto not contested in South Africa or any other Commonwealth court relating to a right to a constitutional remedy and a constitutional right to damages. They held that constitutional damages were the appropriate relief as against those cases where constitutional relief were sought in non-constitutional circumstances. The Supreme Court of Canada has equally contributed to the subject by holding in <em>Canada (Attorney General) v TeleZone Inc</em> [2010] 3 SCR 585 (SCC) that a claimant for Charter damages does not have to obtain judicial review before seeking such relief. This article argues that, while <em>TeleZone</em> has restored the citizen’s right of access to the courts by removing unnecessary procedural obstacles to Charter damages claim, the Privy Council has, through <em>Seepersad</em>, once more laid down principles which South African and other Commonwealth courts may freely refer to if and when similar issues arise in constitutional damages litigation in their jurisdictions.</p>}, number={2}, journal={Obiter}, author={Chuks Okpaluba}, year={2021}, month={Aug.} }