By George Barclay

ACCOUNTANT Clement DeNobrega is alleging that despite his admission as an Associate of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants of England, which entitles him to use the description Chartered Management Accountant, the local body has denied him the use of a ‘Practice Certificate’.As a consequence he has applied to Chief Justice (ag.) Madame Yonette Cummings-Edwards for Writs of Certiorari and Mandamus to compel the local body through a Nisi Order of Certiorari to quash its decision to refuse the applicant a ‘Practice Certificate’.
Chief Justice Cummings-Edwards, who is studying the submissions by the applicant, will in the final analysis decide whether to grant the Nisi Order for the granting of the ‘Practice Certificate’ to the applicant or to refuse him.
Requested are:
(a) An Order or Rule Nisi of Certiorari directed to the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana, a statutory body established under the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana 1991, to show cause why a Writ of Certiorari should not be issued to quash the Council’s decision to refuse to issue to the applicant, Clement De Nobrega, a Practice Certificate pursuant to Section 11 (2) (3) of the Act on the ground that the failure of the Council to do so has been unreasonably delayed and further the Council’s decision to refuse to issue the aforesaid Practice Certificate to the applicant was not made in good faith and is in breach of Section 11 (2) (3) of the Chartered Accountants of Guyana Act 1991, an abuse of power, unfair, wholly unreasonable, arbitrary, ultra vires, null and void.

(b) An Order Rule Nisi of Mandamus directed to the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana, established under the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana Act 1991, to show cause why an Order or Rule Nisi of Mandamus should not be issued compelling the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana to issue forthwith to the applicant, Clement De Nobrega, a Practice Certificate pursuant to Section 11 (2) (3) of the Act on the ground that the failure of the Council to do so has been unreasonably delayed and further its decision to refuse a practice certificate to the applicant was not made in good faith and is in breach of Section 11 (2) (3) of the Act, an abuse of power, unfair, wholly unreasonable, arbitrary, ultra vires, null and void.

In his affidavit in support of the Originating Notice of Motion, the applicant said: “That I have been advised by my Attorneys-at-law and verily believe that the Council did not exercise the statutory powers given to them, refused to issue me with a Practice Certificate, is unfair, irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary, procedurally improper, ultra vires and an abuse of power. That I accordingly pray that this Honourable Court will be pleased to grant the Orders of Certiorari and Mandamus set out in the Originating Notice of Motion herein.”
The affidavit was drawn by Mr. Rex H. Mc Kay, S.C., Mr. Stanley Moore, Mrs. Bettina Glasford, and Mr. Brenden Glasford, Attorneys-at-Law in the Originating Notice of Motion filed herein and to do all acts and things necessary in connection therewith.