Dear Editor,
Having been granted judgment against one of my tenants at the Suddie Magistrate’s Court on 23rd April, 2015 for rental and possession, the necessary court documents were applied for and prepared for the execution of the writ on the defendant. I also visited the Aurora Police Station two days before the bailiff and had a discussion with the sergeant in charge in relation to having a police rank accompany the bailiff and I to the premises.
On Thursday, 11th June, 2015 about 10:00 hrs in the company of the bailiff I went to the Aurora Police Station where I spoke with the sergeant, and a police constable was sent with us so that the writ could be executed, but unfortunately the building was locked up tight, and no one seemed to be at home, so we went back to the station and arrangement was made for the said exercise to be done at 14:00 hrs the same day. On our return to the house, the situation remained exactly the same.
On Monday, 15th June, the bailiff and I went back to the Aurora Police Station and requested that a police rank as is required by law accompany us on this attempt to serve the writ. It was very surprising to us to then be told that we had to go the Police Headquarters in ‘G’ Division about twenty miles away from the station for the Deputy Commander to see the writ, and maybe extract a copy.
This caused me to ask the sergeant if the system had changed between 11th June and 15th June, and if so, was there a letter to that effect. The bailiff also questioned the sergeant about the sudden change which the court had no knowledge of. There was some kind of communication between the sergeant and a senior officer, while the bailiff spoke to his supervisor. At the end of all this we were told by the sergeant to go to Supenaam, three miles away to have the writ photocopied so that he could have a copy. I refused to do as I was told, because it was our third visit for the same purpose, and we should have been told this prior to now.
I stood my ground and kept asking why only now. I asked that we see a copy of the instructions relating to the change in the system. After about half an hour the sergeant decided to send a police officer with us.
It was therefore not surprising to me that on our arrival nobody was there. Having served in the Guyana Police Force, I knew that all the police had to do was to take the information on the writ, that is to say the number, the case jacket number, the plaintiff’s name, the defendant’s name, and the date judgment by consent was given.
I rather suspect that there may have been some level of communication between persons so as to delay the work of the court and frustrate me.
The sergeant acted in a very unprofessional manner and I am asking that the powers that be investigate.
Yours faithfully,
Archie Winslow Cordis
