Having heard an appeal from the Blairmont Rice Investment Incorporated which has sued the Kayman Sankar Group of Companies for alleged breach of contract, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has reserved its ruling which will be delivered on a date to be announced.
During the hearing yesterday morning, the Trinidad-based court of last resort for Guyana again criticized the local courts for their slothful handling of the case which is still engaging the justice system a decade later.
On December 21st, 2006 Blairmont Rice entered into agreements with the Sankar Group for the purchase of interest in certain rice lands, equipment and buildings. Upon signing the agreements, it made an initial payment for the assets acquired.
It was agreed between the parties, that Blairmont Rice would pay the outstanding balance at half-yearly intervals, with an express term that the Sankar Group had the right to repossess the properties once the purchasers failed to honour their financial obligations.
However, it failed to make the required payments and the Sankar Group subsequently repudiated the agreements in January of 2011, and began seeking to repossess its properties.
Three months later, it commenced proceedings in the High Court against Blairmont Rice and on March 29th, 2012, Justice Ian Chang ruled that the agreements had been rescinded for breach by the rice company and consequently ordered the Sankar Group to pay Blairmont Rice “by way of restitution, the sum of $232,277,108 for the return of ownership and vacant possession of all properties, movable and immovable, subject of the agreements between them.”
The judge had further ordered Blairmont Rice to immediately hand over to the Sankar Group all its properties after the restitution would have been paid.
The former chief justice then dismissed a counterclaim Blair-mont Rice had filed, and awarded the Sankar Group costs in the sum of $40,000.
On April 17th, 2012, Blairmont Rice filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal, simultaneously seeking a stay of the orders made by Justice Chang. On May 15th of that year, Justice of Appeal Yonette Cummings-Edwards granted the stay, which she ordered to last until the determination of the substantive appeal.
Later that month, the Sankar Group filed a motion, seeking to set the stay aside. The CCJ noted that after all these years, this motion has not been heard. On July 3rd, 2013 Blairmont Rice filed a motion seeking an order that the Sankar Group vacate the properties, on the basis that they were “forcibly and brutally evicted by them in the wee hours of May 12th, 2013.”
But by a majority, the Court of Appeal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the motion and so dismissed it on July 30th 2013.
Blairmont Rice subsequently appealed to the CCJ and, after hearing counsel on both sides, the CCJ, on August 13th, 2013 issued an order by consent, remitting to the Appeal Court, for urgent hearing on their merits, the motions of both Blairmont Rice and the Sankar Group.
The CCJ had at that time, directed that “the hearing of the notices of motion be deemed fit for urgent hearing by the Court of Appeal.”
With the matter coming up before it again, the Trinidad-based court back in December of 2017, noted with shock that the motion was still to be heard.
To date, that motion is still to be heard, for which CCJ President, Justice Adrian Saunders and Justice Jacob Wit expressed shock and disappointment.
At yesterday’s hearing, Justice Wit said it was “worrisome” that after all this time that motion has still not been heard, especially considering that the apex court had specifically instructed the Guyana Court of Appeal that the motion ought to have been urgently heard.
Meanwhile, for his part, Justice Saunders described the chronicle of the litigation through the justice system to date as “a mess.”
The local appellate court had previously come in for criticism from the CCJ for its sloth in dispensing with the matter.
Four years ago, former CCJ judge David Hayton had described the state of affairs as “most unsatisfactory,” while adding that whatever explanation may be proffered as to the difficulties in providing a panel of three judges to hear the appeals, be it judges who recused themselves or who retired without being replaced for some time, “we do not think that it could justify a delay of more than four years.”
Noting at that point the more than five years which had elapsed since Blairmont Rice filed its appeal, the court had asserted it was clear that the substantive appeal needed to be heard “as expeditiously as possible.”
Reminding the Guyana Court of Appeal that it is its final Court of Appeal for Guyana, the CCJ had declared that it has an implied duty and power to monitor compliance with its orders to ensure that justice is done in accordance with its decisions.
It was against that backdrop that the CCJ had ordered the Registrar of the Guyana Court of Appeal to notify it, no later than December 21, 2017 of a date for the hearing of the appeal filed by Blairmont Rice.
Four years on, that has not been done.
Presiding over the matter are Justice Saunders and Wit along with Justices Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, Andrew Burgess and Peter Jamadar.
Blairmont Rice is being represented by attorneys Sanjeev Datadin, Jamela Ali SC and Donavon Rangiah, while Kayman Sankar is being represented by Juman Yassin SC and Teni Housty.
