-says CJRCI failed to make full, frank disclosure of all material facts

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Basil Williams and the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission; the two named defendants in the Red House lease case, submitted their submissions in response to claims made by the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre Inc. (CJRCI), arguing that the applicant has failed to make full and frank disclosure of all materials facts of the case.
In the written submission, the defendants contended that the declaration made by the Research Centre that the Red House lease which was issued under Section 10 of the Lands Department Act Chapter 59:01 was valid, binding and in force, is flawed.
President David Granger late last year ordered that the controversial lease for the Red House, which housed the CJRCI be revoked and that the occupants vacate the property. The decision had come after Williams had issued a statement detailing the history of the CJRCI’s occupancy of the building and outlining that there was no valid lease agreement as former President Bharrat Jagdeo had refused to approve at least two applications for the lease.
However, Chairman of the Management Committee of the Centre, Hydar Ally subsequently moved to the High Court requesting Conservatory Orders to restrain or prevent the government from taking possession of the building; declared that the lease was valid and that President Granger’s revocation order was illegal.
The Attorney General in his submission contends that the CJRCI having gone to the court Ex Parte was obliged to make a full and frank disclosure of all material facts. As such, Williams said that CJRCI did not disclose to the court several material facts including the fact that the lease must be sanctioned or approved by the President under Section 10 of the Deeds Registry Act 3:01 and was not; that the paltry rental sum of the lease, to wit, $1000 per month; by the provisions of the Deeds Registry Act the lease of 99 years must be executed in the manner of a transport before the Court and was not; that the lease must be filed as of record in the Deeds Registry and was not; that the lease was not pleadable in a Court of Justice and invalid if not executed before the Court, filed as a record and annotated by the Registrar in the Deeds Registry and that no reference to the Red House being a Heritage site under the National Trust Act Chapter 20:03 and could not be leased by the Commissioner of Lands and Surveys under Section 10 of the Lands Department Act Chapter 59:01.
Additionally, Williams argued that the Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter and noted that the principle that every court before proceeding to hear a matter must determine if it had jurisdiction to do so. “Since the Applicant/ Plaintiff contends that the matter is a constitutional action which seeks to protect its fundamental rights under the Constitution, it is required to come by way of constitutional motion to the court under Article 153 of the Constitution and not by Write of Summons and should be struck out as being an abuse of the process of the Court and the Court will lack jurisdiction to proceed.”
The Attorney General argued also that a mere reference to a claim for constitutional relief or assertion of a fundamental right does not suffice to entitle a court to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction.
“The defendants likewise submit that this is a private law action for the determination of the validity of a lease and the lawfulness of its revocation and cannot be transformed into a constitutional matter as the Applicant/ Plaintiff failed to please sufficient facts to show it was the lawful owner of a leasehold interest in the Red House Property under a valid lease to ground a prima facie breach of the fundamental right claimed.”
The ruling on the jurisdiction of the court to hear proceedings will be made on March 24.
As such, Williams said that it could not be seriously contended that the applicant/ plaintiff had a fundamental right to property the subject of an invalid lease. Arguably, the CJRCI though indicating in its Writ of Summons and Endorsement of Claim and Ex Parte Affidavit that the Red House lease is valid, binding and in force, it did not provide the court with sufficient particulars which give rise to and support such a claim.
Moreover, he posited that the CJRCI‘s contention that the provisions of Section 13 of the Deeds Registry Act does not apply to government lands is flawed. Based on the aforementioned, the CJRCI was required to execute the 99 years Red House lease in the manner of a transport before the court; file it as of record in the Deeds Registry and the Registrar annotates it in the Register before it reaches a bona fide transferee for value without notice.
“The Red House which as a result cannot be pleased in any court of law robs this Honourable Court of Jurisdiction to proceed,” said Williams who maintained that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case. He noted too that in the case of the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission, the second named defendant, where that Commission revoked the Red House Lease, it was done in the name and under the executive authority of the President.
“Thus the act of revoking the Red House lease was not done directly but indirectly by the President acting through an officer subordinate to him in accordance with the Carltona Principle.”
He continued: “Mutatis Mutandis (in like manner) no order can be made against the president challenging the act of the second named defendant when the latter was acting for and in the name of the president.” The CJRCI is seeking damages in excess of $1M for breach of lease of government land for educational or research purposes; damages in excess of $1M for breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution of Guyana.