Efforts by Reginald Daniels through the local courts to recover a US$15,000 loan he made to former friend Ronald Backer more than a decade ago have proven futile as High Court judge Gino Persaud has ruled that his lawsuit was statute-barred.
Backer, political advisor to Director General Joseph Harmon, was sued by Daniels for failing to repay the loan he borrowed in 2007 while they both resided in the United States (US).
Justice Persaud, in a judgment earlier this month, dismissed the matter brought by Daniels, ruling in Backer’s favour that Daniels’ action was way out of time, given that the loan had been made since 2007.
The judge dismissed the matter in accordance with the Limitation Act.
He then awarded Backer court costs in the sum of $50,000, to be borne by Daniels.
In his action for full repayment, Daniels had said that he lent Backer the money to help him avoid a bank foreclosing on his house in the United States.
Backer in a counter notice of application argued, however, that the courts here did not have jurisdiction to hear the action brought by Daniels, while arguing that it was statute-barred and was seeking an order to that effect.
The political advisor was specifically of the view that because the transaction took place in the year 2007, the limitation period had expired and, therefore, an action based on that transaction was barred by statute.
His contention had always been that the courts here had no jurisdiction to hear the matter.
In his counter application, Backer acknowledged receiving “monies” from Daniels “sometime in 2007,” which he described as being pursuant to “a business transaction in the United States of America.”
According to Backer, they had both agreed “that the monies would be used on a property” which he, (Backer) had in the US, with the clear intention that they would create legal relations on US soil.
It is against this backdrop Backer advanced that since the transaction and every part thereof occurred in the US, the courts in Guyana would have no jurisdiction to hear the matter and on that basis argued that Daniels’ action could not stand on its merit.
Daniels was seeking to recover the full sum or its equivalent in Guyana dollars, along with all accrued interest at a rate of 6% per annum from when he filed his claim and thereafter at 4% per annum from date of judgment, until the whole sum was paid.
Daniels, a Financial Consultant who trades under the name Daniels Financial Services, with an office in Brooklyn, New York, had said that Backer had promised to repay the money within a year of the loan.
After lending him the money, however, the applicant said the now political advisor “disappeared” from his US residence and he was unable to contact him until his subsequent discovery that the man had re-migrated to Guyana, where he now works as an advisor to government.
Daniels said he saw Backer when he returned to Guyana in 2011 to assist the current government with its elections campaign and he had asked for his money then and even after his appointment as political advisor, but to no avail.
Daniels in his statement of claim, said he told his former friend that since he was now earning a salary, which he says stands at in excess of $500,000 monthly, he needed to be reimbursed but to no avail.
Daniels had expressed the belief that the political advisor was “willfully and deliberately” refusing to honour his debt to him, “even though he is capable of paying the money owed.”
Daniels was represented by attorney Lyndon Amsterdam, while Backer was represented by attorney Sedella Ferrell, who is attached to the Chambers of Joseph Harmon and Associates.
Daniels had said he previously sought Harmon’s intervention in the matter.
A letter, dated June 1st, 2018, which he said he penned to Harmon for his intervention in the matter, was seen by this newspaper. In the letter, Daniels explained his plight to Harmon over his employee’s non-payment of the debt, while explaining that he wanted to have the matter amicably resolved, so as not to cause embarrassment to the minister’s office.
He informed the minister about his intention to initiate legal proceedings aimed at recovering the sum owed to him and to even publicise Backer’s conduct. However, he said there was no response.
