Court throws out Nandlall’s Enmore NDC computer case
Attorney, Anil Nandlall
Attorney, Anil Nandlall

…cites his failure to comply with case management timelines

HIGH Court Judge, Justice Priya Sewnarine-Beharry on Monday dismissed a case brought by the Enmore Neighbourhood Democratic Council (NDC) against Clive Thomas, Aubrey Heath- Retemyer and Attorney General, Basil Williams, for damages for trespass, unlawful seizure and confiscation of a quantity of desktop computer systems and power packs, among other reliefs.

Justice Sewnarine-Beharry dismissed the case due to the failure of the claimant’s attorney, Anil Nandlall, to comply with the Case Management timelines set by the Judge, pursuant to the new Civil Procedure Rules. The attorney has failed to comply with the Case Management timetable by not filing and serving any Affidavit of Documentary Evidence, and a complete list of witness or witnesses in the said matter.

Back in April, the State Asset Recovery Unit (SARU) removed from the Enmore NDC computers belonging to the local government authority. The computers were reportedly given to the NDC by the Basic Needs Trust Fund, and at a statutory meeting, a decision was taken to have them sold.

SARU officials on arrival at the NDC, found the 15 computers in a “state of disrepair,” and it was observed that the units were improperly stored in dusty conditions, and there was no evidence to suggest that the computers were used recently. The PPP, which controls the NDC, had claimed that the computers were being used to teach evening classes for residents.

As a result of the seizure, Nandlall, filed and claimed for damages in excess of $5M. The NDC, through its attorney, claimed for damages in excess of $1M for trespass committed on April 6, 2017 at the office of the NDC by five men, members of the State Assets Recovery Unit (SARU); damages in excess of $1M for the unlawful seizure and confiscation of a quantity of desktop computer systems along with backup power packs, all being the property of the NDC on the said day by the said SARU agents; damages in excess of $1M for unlawful detention of a quantity of desktop computer systems along with backup power packs; damages in excess of $1M for conversion of a quantity of desktop computer systems along with backup power packs; and aggravated and exemplary damages in excess of $1M.

The claimant contended that the NDC is, and was at all material times, a statutory body corporate and an autonomous legally-elected body which is independent of the Government. Judy Stuart Adonis and Collene Liverpool, State Counsel appeared for the Defendants while Rajendra Jaigobin appeared for the Claimant on Monday.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

1 thought on “Court throws out Nandlall’s Enmore NDC computer case”

  1. I am in favour of the need for compliance with the civil procedure rules to ensure the speedy completion of cases in courts. I am aware that in the recent past many civil high court cases suffocated in the judicial system for so long that justice could not be achieved mainly for lack of evidence or the death or migration of some of the parties. The need for strict compliance with timetables is important and all the stakeholders should be aware of this. Any judge imposing a strict timetable should inform litigants in no uncertain terms that if there is non-compliance, without good cause, the claim will be dismissed.

    However, dismissal of a case for non-compliance should not be set in stone. Where a case has been dismissed for some flippant reason or the judge imposing a timetable fails to make it unambiguously clear that non-compliance with the timetable will be dire and the claim will be dismissed for non-compliance, then a dismissal should not be the only course of action. Instead of a dismissal of the claim, a judge can make an “unless order” that if the timetable is not complied with by a specific date the case will be dismissed without a further hearing. This is normal in England in spite of the need to comply with the civil procedure rules (CPR) in that country. I am not conversant with the CPR in Guyana but presumably most of the rules are based on what are set out in the English CPR (as in the White Book).

    In this article I note that “Justice Sewnarine-Beharry dismissed the case due to the failure of the claimant’s attorney, Anil Nandlall, to comply with the Case Management
    timelines set by the Judge, pursuant to the new Civil Procedure Rules. The attorney has failed to comply with the Case Management timetable by not filing and serving any Affidavit of Documentary Evidence, and a complete list of witness or witnesses in the said matter.” What is pertinent to this dismissal is how strict are the CPR in Guyana. If
    the relevant parts of the rules are the same as in England and the Judge did no make it unambiguously clear that non-compliance with the timetable would be inimical to further prosecution of the claim, then the claimant might approach the Court of Appeal for reinstatement of the claim.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.