JUSTICE Rishi Persaud, in an action brought, yesterday, by City businessman James Samuels, against Guyana Telephone & Telegraph Company Ltd., agreed that the businessman was experiencing hardship as a result of the licence that the company enjoyed that gave it a monopoly advantage which was unlawful. The plaintiff, Samuels, got judgment in his favour when the judge awarded him $850,000 general damages with $150,000 costs.
Citing decisions, the judge added, “The Court of Appeal found that the grant of licences or  permission for  broadcasting  to  government controlled radio stations  only,  has created an unlawful  monopoly in breach of the Civil Law Act, chapter 6:01 of the Laws  of Guyana. The court also demonstrated that apart from the provisions of the Civil Law Act, the existence of monopolies can infringe constitutionally guaranteed  rights.”
Samuel’s case involved issues arising out of the rapid international advances in communication technology which have filtered down to Guyana and have stimulated a  technoligical  revolution of sorts. The plaintiff was represented by Attorney-at-law, Mr. Parmanand Mohanlall.
Mr Miles Fitzpatrick, S.C., with Mr. T. Jonas representing the defendant.
In the instant matter, the plaintiff applied for and was provided with DSL internet service by the defendant Company in 2006. The defendant held an  exclusive licence for national and international voice  and data transmission  under the Telecommunication Act 1990.  After the internet service was installed on the plaintiff’s computer located at his residence in Georgetown, he subscribed  to a Voice Over Internet Protocol Service (VOIP) provided by the Vonage Company of the  United States of America. That servicer enables a subscriber to send and receive voice communication electronically over the internet by use of a personal computer.
The plaintiff wrote the defendant informing them of his intention to utilize the VOIP service in Guyana. The defendant replied to the plaintiff advising him that under the terms of his contract with the defendant, he was prohibited from utilizing   the DSL service for international telephone activities or for international telephone bypass.
The plaintiff disregarded the advice proffered by the defendant and proceeded to utiise the DSL Service provided by the Defendant for VOIP activities.
Upon discovery of such activities the defendant blocked the plaintiff’s internet access thereby disrupting the DSL service which was provided to the plaintiff’s residence’.
The defendant contended  that the  disruption of the service was justified since the plaintiff was unlawfully operating an unlicensed telecommunication service  in contravention of the provisions of the Telecommunications  Act  – Act 27 of 1990 (‘the Act)  and of the Defendant’s contract and licence with the Government of Guyana.
As a consequence, the plaintiff instituted these proceedings seeking, inter alia, a declaration that there is a  breach of the contract executed between the plaintiff and the defendant  for the  provision of the DSL service  for the plaintiff’s premises at 292 Church Street, Queenstown, with respect to his use of VOIP equipment.
Justice Persaud, after listening to the argument and submissions,  said “I  accordingly uphold  the  plaintiff’s submission on this issue and find  that the  licence granting  an exclusive  right or monopoly to the defendant to  provide telecommunications service  or to control or regulate  voice and data transmission  on the internet  is unlawful and void.