By Femi Harris-Smith
Pacific Development Inc (PDI) has been ordered to refund a woman $6 million dollars for construction of a house it promised, after a court found that the land earmarked for the erection had not been granted by the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA).
The company conceded before the court that it had unjustifiably taken the woman’s money, knowing full well that a house lot had not even been granted to her by the CH&PA; which was a necessary prerequisite.
The company sought to tell the woman that her signed agreement and payment of the money would first be required by the CH&PA as “supporting evidence,” before her application for land could be considered.
In a recent ruling on the case, High Court Judge Gino Persaud granted judgment in favour of Patricia King (the Appli-cant), ordering PDI (the Respondent), to fully reimburse the $6,000,000 she had paid.
She sought an order rescinding the agreement she made with the company a year ago for construction of a residential property at Lot 3424, Little Diamond, East Bank Demerara; and for a refund of the sum which was an advance payment.
King deposed in her court action against the Lot 3 Church Street, George-town company that she entered into the agreement on April 11th of last year and paid the $6,000,000 to PDI the very next day.
According to court documents seen by this newspaper, King explained through her attorney Hewley Griffith, of having been told by representative of the PDI, Shazam Jamaludin, that her signed agreement with the company and her $6 million deposit “were required supporting evidence by the Central Housing and Planning Authority before they, (CH&PA) would consider my application for the land.”
King said she paid the money on April 12th, 2023 by way of a personal cheque as an advance payment towards construction for which she said she was issued an original receipt.
King’s affidavit went on to detail that on that very day, PDI wrote the Chief Executive of the Central Housing & Planning Authority “indicating that a contractual agreement had been entered into with the Applicant,” for the construction of a 1750 sq. ft. single storey property at the Little Diamond address.
The letter King said, was signed by PDI’s Administrative Manager Ronetha Raghunandan, and requested “the processing and issuing of Title of Land” in her (King’s) favour.
King said she was further told by Jamaludin that the “signed agreement and deposit for construction of the house were required supporting evidence by the Central Housing and Planning Authority before they would consider my application for the land.”
The Applicant said that both she and Raghunandan subsequently visited the CH&PA for an interview, at which she said she was told “I did not qualify to obtain a plot of land.”
Despite the response of the housing ministry, however, King said that Jamaludin “assured me that he would request a review of my application.”
She continued, “he repeatedly indicated that the matter was being processed and that a favourable outcome was expected.”
She said that up to July 19th, 2023, however, she had still not received any positive response from the CH&PA and as such she wrote PDI the same day to terminate the agreement and requested a full refund of her deposit.
The Applicant said that the CH&PA never approved allocation and as such construction could not be undertaken
She said that despite repeated demands, the Respondent refused to refund her completely or even in part and as a result she had to file the court action against the company.
In his ruling handed down earlier this month, Justice Persaud ordered Pacific Development Inc to repay King her $6,000,000 in full.
