$10M Judgment dismissed
WHEN the Guyana Court of Appeal, by a majority decision, allowed an appeal filed by a magistrate sitting in the Jamaican Magistracy, Desiree Alleyne, against a decision of former High Court Judge Justice B.S. Roy, a new trial was ordered. Justice Roy had granted judgment in the sum of $10, 000, 000 to Guyana Bank for Trade and Industry based on a contract of guarantee the bank alleged was signed and entered into by Desiree Alleyne, on 9th of August ,1996, before a Notary Public in Jamaica.

The guarantee purportedly signed by Desiree Alleyne guaranteed a loan of $10,000,000 obtained by a company, Wilson Enterprise Inc., which has since gone into liquidation and defaulted on its loan payments with the bank.

The contract of guarantee which was purportedly signed by the appellant in Jamaica was also signed by two employees of the bank as witnesses in Guyana.

The majority decision to allow the appeal and order a retrial was made by Justice of Appeal Yonette Cummings-Edwards and additional Judge of the Court of Appeal, Justice James Bovell-Drakes, with the acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Mr. Carl Singh, dissenting.

The matter began in March 2002, when the Bank filed a writ against Alleyne, who was residing and working in Jamaica as a Magistrate at the time , for the sum of $10, 000,000 which was the total sum guaranteed under the Contract of Guarantee.

Desiree Alleyne had denied that she had signed and executed the Contract of Guarantee before Notary Public Vincent Chan, in Jamaica . After a trial before Justice B.S. Roy , judgment was granted to the bank in July, 2005, and Desiree Alleyne subsequently filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Several grounds of appeal were argued before the Court for Desiree Alleyne by Mr Lyndon Amsterdam of the law firm ‘Forde , Amsterdam and Lewis’, while Mr.Nikhil Ramkarran of Cameron and Shepherd represented Guyana Bank of Trade and Industry.

In his arguments before the Court of Appeal, Mr.Lyndon Amsterdam had argued for the first time that the Writ of Summons filed on behalf of the bank did not comply with the Rules of Court and therefore was a nullity, in addition to the fact that the computer generated documents did not comply with the provisions of the Evidence Act. And therefore the evidenced led before the Court did not prove the case against the Appellant, Desiree Alleyne, during the trial.