— compelling him to appoint governing board of Deeds and Commercial Registries

ATTORNEY General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs,Basil Williams SC,has filed a notice of appeal against the High Court judgement by Justice Nareshwar Harnanan on April 19,which compelled him to appoint the governing board of the Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority.
The AG is also calling on the Court of Appeal to set aside wholly Justice Harnanan’s ruling and that the Applicant/ Respondent, former AG Anil Nandall be ordered to pay costs.
Nandlall in an application before the High Court called for Williams to be compelled to appoint the Board Members.
He argued that Section 5(1) of the Act establishes a Governing Board of the Authority to ensure its proper and efficient performance and submitted that the failure to appoint the board represents an omission to perform duties imposed by the Act and can be seen as misfeasance in public office and abuse of power.
Additionally, the former AG said that the non-appointment of the new board meant that meetings could not be held for over a year and that affected his ability to serve his clients effectively.
However, the Attorney General in his defence said the High Court Judge erred and misdirected himself in law when he refused to attach weight to the fact that the Minister of Legal Affairs was “proactive in seeking to have a more efficacious board by seeking to strengthen and widen it, by the Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority (Amendment) Bill No. 3 of 2017” which is awaiting passage in the House today.
In his Notice of Appeal, Williams said the judge also erred when he “refused to attach any weight to the fact that it was Cabinet’s decision to take the proposed amendment of the Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority Act to the National Assembly.”
He submitted that the judge failed to consider that under the Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority Act,there were adequate provisions for the functioning of the Authority in the “temporary absence of the board including the Minister of Legal Affairs taking action to protect the assets of the State”.
He argued that the judge did not take into consideration, despite the presence of a board, that there was a failure to unearth the fraudulent acts that were discovered and which occurred under the board’s watch by the Legal Affairs Minister, after they left office.
“The Learned Judge,Nareshwar Harnanan erred and misdirected himself in law when he failed to consider that the respondent/applicant had failed to make full disclosure and had concealed from Justice Brassington Reynolds the fact that proposals affecting the composition of the board were contained in the Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority (Amendment) Bill No. of 2017.”

COMMIT ILLEGALITY
Additionally, the AG argued that both judges “committed a specific illegality when by their rulings they purported to dictate to the Minister of Legal Affairs, Cabinet and the Government of Guyana their own timelines to constitute the Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority Board in contravention of the doctrine of Separation of Powers”.
Moreover, Williams contends that Harnanan by his failure to apply the overriding objective of the new Civil Procedure Rules to deal with cases justly and not exercise his discretion injudiciously,acted illegally. He also accused the judge of failing to apply the new Civil Procedures Rules to deal with cases justly so as to “effect a quick passage of the Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority (Amendment) Bill 2017 through the National Assembly.
He submitted too that Justice Harnanan did not take into consideration that upon the expiration of the board in June 2016, two months were lost for the parliamentary recess August to October 2016, the reduced sittings because of the one-seat majority and the Christmas Season, to effectively make it about eight months since the board expired and not a year as contended by Nandlall.
“The Learned Judge,Nareshwar Harnanan committed a specific illegality when he failed to exercise judicial restraint despite having knowledge that amendments to the board were engaging the attention of the legislative arm of the State, in breach of the doctrine of separation of powers.”
As such, Williams contends that Justice Reynolds erred and misdirected himself in law when he granted the Order Nisi of Mandamus on March 8 and Justice Harnanan erred in law when he ruled that the Order be made absolute. That order compelled Williams to appoint members of the Governing Board of the Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority.
Meanwhile, Williams submitted that the learned judges ought to have considered that the expired board was the inaugural board of the Authority and that reconstituting it would involve a question of re-appointment under Section 6 (1) of the Deeds and Commercial Registries Authority Act.
“The learned judges erred and misdirected themselves in law when they failed to consider that the re-appointment of members of the board was in the discretion of the Minister of Legal Affairs and not mandatory,” the AG submitted.
Additionally, he contends that Justice Reynolds did not consider that Nandlall had the burden of proving that the failure to appoint or re-appoint the board was as a result of his dithering dilatoriness or deliberate omission before granting the Order Nisi of Mandamus.
“The learned judges both erred and misdirected themselves in law when they failed to consider it is not mandated that the minister of legal affairs appoint the ministerial members of the board,” the appeal added.
The appeal is filed by the AG on behalf of the governing board and chairman of the Deeds and Commercial Registries, the Registrar of Deeds, and the Registrar of the Commercial Registry.