JUSTICE James Bovell-Drakes, on Thursday, dismissed an $18M claim for damages that Chaterpaul Nawbatt had filed against the Attorney General.
The action surrounded the m.v. Tanyelli.
The plaintiff had claimed damages for the vessel he purchased at an execution sale, while it was in control and custody of a Supreme Court marshal, but did not receive.

Nawbatt said he bid $201,000 and paid the sum for the Tanyelli but, when he sought to take possession, it could not be found.

He said the value of it was $18M and he suffered loss of use, as a result of its non-delivery, at the rate of $20,000 daily, from June 20, 2006 to now.

But Deputy Solicitor General Nareshwar  Harnanan, for the Attorney General, while admitting the vessel was purchased for $201,000, submitted that the Registrar had no knowledge that the Tanyelli disappeared from a wharf  at Vreed-en-Hoop, West Coast Demerara.

He told the Court Nawbatt was, immediately, offered a refund of the money he paid but refused it.

Harnanan said the basis for the offer, at that early stage, was to restore the plaintiff to the position he would have been had the sale not been concluded and because the contract was frustrated.

He argued that a ruling to the contrary would unjustly enrich Nawbatt at the expense of the State when all he is entitled to is the payment he made for the Tanyelli.

At the hearing, Nawbatt and a valuator gave evidence in support of the claim for damages but, under cross-examination, the former could not account for the $18M valuation but said, on a previous occasion, he had heard another man bid that amount but it was not accepted then.

The valuer, who said he was an expert in the process, valued the vessel at US$250,000 but, when cross-examined, admitted he did not possess any technical certification, only experience in the business and his testimony was excluded on the ground that it was not unreliable and not credible.

Justice Bovell-Drakes ruled that there was a failure of consideration when the Registrar was unable to complete the cycle of the contract and had a duty to deliver the vessel to the plaintiff.

However, the judge, going on to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages, noted that his evidence was inconsequential, as he could not say if he suffered consequential loss resulting from the failure of the Registrar to deliver the vessel.

Justice Bovell-Drakes remarked that the plaintiff had no basis for the claim that the vessel was worth $18M and, accordingly, gave the $201,000 judgement, representing a  refund of what he had paid at the sale.

The Court refused to order interest on the sum, declaring it would be unjust in the circumstances.