CJ rejects lawyer’s claim to First Federation Building

-applicant had no locus standi
-to pay respondent $40,000 costs
HAVING set up himself as a tenant of the First Federation Life Insurance Building in October 2013, attorney-at-law Saphier Husssain had sought a Nisi Order compelling City Engineer Lloyd Alleyne to quash his decision to condemn the building because it was in a ruinous state and was considered dangerous to its occupants. And he was initially granted a Nisi Order to this effect.In his affidavit in support of the Motion, Hussain deposed that the First Federation Building is the property of the First Federation Life Insurance Company Limited, in accordance with Transport No. 1132 of 1964; and that pursuant to an Order of Court dated November 29, 1988, the Official Receiver was appointed Provisional Liquidator on March 10, 1989, in accordance with Section 148 (1) of the Companies Act, Chapter 89:01.

At some time about July 1, 1987, Hussain had entered into an agreement of tenancy with the First Federation Life Insurance Company for Room No. 2 in the First Federation Building at an annual rent of $60,000.

On January 23, 2013, a writ of summons was filed with plaint signed by the Solicitor-General as Attorney-at-Law for the Official Receiver for possession of Room 2, which Hussain was occupying. Hussain filed a defence to the summons and plaint; and later, the Attorney-General, by his servants or agents, discontinued the proceedings (C.J. No 75/2013 –Exhibit F.)

Six days after he had filed his defence, City Engineer (ag.) Lloyd Alleyne sent a letter to the Official Receiver, in which he deemed the First Federation (concrete and wooden) Building to be “in a ruinous state and dangerous to the occupants, passersby and neighbouring buildings.” That letter was dated February 20, 2013.

In April 2013, Hussain received a copy of the letter issued by the City Engineer, sent to him by the Official Receiver.

In Hussain’s affidavit in support of Motion, the applicant deposed that he was contending that the document was fraudulent; was made with improper purpose and motives, and by using irrelevant consideration was failing to use relevant consideration; and was made with dictation from State Agency. It was also contended that the letter was made by a judge in its own cause, “which amounts to conspiracy to evict myself from the premises.”

The Chief Justice remarked thus:
“Having regard to the status of the (applicant) as a tenant in the building, and (to) the specific public law function of the City Engineer, it does appear to the court that the applicant had no locus standi to institute these proceedings, especially as the function of the City Engineer in inspecting the building was for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the applicant himself (inter alios).

“For the above reasons, the Order Nisi of Certiorari made on the 30th October, 2013 against the named respondent — City Engineer — must be discharged. The court so orders.

“There will be costs to the respondent in the sum of $40,000”, the Chief Justice added.
By George Barclay

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.