THE ousted Management Committee of the Guyana Public Service Cooperative Credit Union (GPSCCU) lost its legal battle to the Chief-Cooperatives Development Officer (CCDO) Perlina Gifth, when the matter was thrown out of the High Court on Friday.
Though her service was terminated, Patricia Went, in the capacity as member and chairman of the GPSCCU, filed a ‘Fixed Date Application’ and a Notice of Application for Interlocutory Relief on June 12, 2018, thereby challenging the decision of CCDO to assume control over the GPSCCU as well as the decision to appoint an Interim Management Committee (IMC).

Went, through her attorneys-at-Law Roysdale Forde and Olayne Joseph, had argued that the decision of the CCDO to terminate the services of the Management Committee was in breach of the Co-operative Societies Act Cap. 88:01 and her action was a denial of the principles of Natural Justice.

However, the Deputy Solicitor-General Deborah Kumar and Assistant Solicitor-General, Beverley Bishop-Cheddie, who represented the CCDO on behalf of the Chamber of the Attorney General, argued that Went had to first pursue the procedure set out in Regulation 56(3) of the Co-operative Societies Act by filing an appeal to the minister within 21 days of the decision of the CCDO. They maintained that the applicant ought to have exhausted all the remedies before an application was made to the High Court.

Upon hearing the arguments in the High Court, Justice Navindra Singh dismissed the applications filed by Went. “The authorities do not demonstrate that if an aggrieved person is not given a hearing that person can as of right abandon the statutory defined right of appeal provided. In fact, it stands to reason that, if indeed, the applicant was of the firm belief that the Committee of Management’s right to be heard was breached, then the appeal process laid out in the Co-operative Societies Act seems to be the next logical step to challenge the decision by the CCDO, provided, of course, that a majority of the members of the Committee of Management were desirous of challenging that decision.

“Further, since the principles of natural justice supplement the law, it is possible that in the formulation of a particular statute and in certain situations, for those principles to be excluded,” Justice Singh said as he handed down his decision.

Went, through her attorneys, had argued that the embattled Management Committee was not provided with any reason prior to the decision by the CCDO to assume control of the Credit Union and was therefore deprived of natural justice.

In rebutting the arguments put forward, the deputy solicitor-general and assistant solicitor- general contended that the provisions of regulation 56(2) did not envisage that reasons were to be provided, and as such, maintained that the CCDO acted lawfully in her decision to exercise control.

In defending their position, they argued that the ousted Management Committee had become incapable of managing or had wilfully neglected the affairs of the society, and that there were breaches and non-compliance with respect to Regulation 58 which mandates that the accounts of the credit union be audited at least once annually;
Further, in discharge of its obligation under Regulation 58, a society may indicate to the Department of Co-operative Development that it is ready to be audited, or the department may initiate the audit. In either instance, the auditor is identified and appointed by the CCDO to whom the final audit report is to be submitted.

But in the case of the GPSCCU under the watch of Went, there had been no auditing of accounts and no financial statements since the year 2010, and, further, those audited had not been approved since 2010, the attorneys argued.

“The refusal by the Committee of Management to sign the Adjusted Audited Reports for the period 2011-2013 directly led to there being no Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the Guyana Public Service Co-operative Credit Union Limited since the year 2010 and no payment of dividends to the members of the Guyana Public Service Co-operative Credit Union Limited since the year 2010,” the attorneys further pointed out.

It was also submitted on behalf of the attorney general that the applicant ought to have made an application for judicial review and not for declarations and injunctions.
The court on this aspect ruled that any challenge to the decision of the CCDO should have been pursued as provided for in regulation 56(3) of the Co-operative Societies Act.
Attorney-at-Law Nigel Hughes, who represented the second to ninth named respondents (the members of the IMC: Justice Prem Persaud, Patsy Russel, Trevor Benn, Rajdai Jagarnauth, Gillian Pollard, Oneidge Walrond-Allicock, Patrick Mentore and George Vaughn), had submitted that none of the declaratory reliefs sought were against them and therefore the Fixed Date Application ought to have been dismissed.

The court also found that there was no stated claim against the members of the IMC. Justice Singh ruled that “a declaration is a judicial remedy which conclusively determines the rights and obligations of public and private persons and authorities, without the addition of any coercive or directory decree”.

In dismissing the Fixed Date Application and Notice of Application for Interlocutory Relief, Justice Singh awarded to the state the sum of $150,000.00 and also to the second to ninth respondents in the sum of $150,000.