A 36-YEAR OLD electrical technician is appealing a decision made by High Court Judge, Franklin Holder on the grounds that he was not granted a fair trial regarding a property in the city.

The matter involves a property located at Lot 60/61 Cross Street, Werk-en-Rust in the city between Shirland Johnson and his adopted mother, Daphne Rogers.

Johnson is contending through his lawyer, Attorney-at-law Saphier Husain that he is entitled to prescriptive title of the property.

The case was filed on April 6, 2017 and Attorney General, Basil Williams and Justice Holder are named as defendants in the matter.

Johnson is contending that the judgment which was passed down by Judge Holder in December 2016 was “unfair “and “inaccurate” and that there was no court recorder nor electronic equipment recording the proceeding at the hearing.
Johnson also contends that he is informed via public information and what appeared in the press of another matter which involves the Attorney General in which the latter requested that his submission be recorded by the judge in question. According to the documents, Johnson’s lawyer stated that his client’s fundamental right to a fair trial, as guaranteed under the Constitution of Guyana, was contravened in the judge’s decision, which was made on December 28, 2016.

John is claiming damages in excess of $100,000 for violation of the constitution. According to the facts of the matter, Johnson resided at Lots 60-61 Cross Street, Werk-en-Rust, since 1982. The property is in the name of Rogers and according to court papers , the relation was always one of “mother “ and “adopted “ son.

It was noted by Johnson, the applicant that he invested over $10 M in maintaining, renovating and restructuring the building in question. He said he had no objection from anyone, including Rogers. Johnson said he and his family lived at the property for over 10 years. However, Rogers later filed for possession of the property, while the matter was being debated in the Land court. Johnson, through his attorney, contended that Justice Holder refused to have his (Johnson’s) wife joined as an interested party in the matter.