Court rejects SOCU’s insertion in rice miller’s court case

Apr 21, 2017 News

An attempt by the Special Organised Crime Unit, (SOCU) to be inserted in a legal battle between the State and a private rice miller has been rejected by the court.

SOCU’s Head, Sydney James

The said matter involves Essequibo rice miller, Arnold Sankar, and the Guyana Rice Development Board, (GRDB).
Yesterday, Justice Diana Insanally struck out an affidavit filed by SOCU in answer to a summons in the ongoing legal battle between the two parties.
The Essequibo rice miller, who operates under the name Arnold Sankar and Sons Rice Mills, had taken the GRDB to court for some $99 million over an alleged breach in agreement. The plaintiff had claimed that under the agreement the GRBD had promised to repay Sankar for the purchase of paddy but failed to honour its obligations.
The motion was filed by Attorney-at- Law Anil Nandlall and Associates. The respondent in the matter (GRDB) is represented by Attorneys from the Chambers of the Attorney General. However, during yesterday’s court proceeding the team of Attorneys from the AG Chambers was joined by Sydney James, Head of SOCU.
During a closed hearing, the court was then informed that James had filed an affidavit in response to the summons by the plaintiff as part of the defence.
The court was informed, further, that the rice miller is subject to an investigation by SOCU, hence the actions by James.
But Lawyers for the plaintiff, Manoj Narayan and Rajendra Jaigobin, noted that the SOCU has no locus standi in the matter. The attorneys argued whether the defence should be struck out and that judgment should be granted in favour of the plaintiff.
The lawyers based their arguments on the defendant’s failure to meet the court’s deadline in filing their affidavit in response.
They noted that the failure to meet the deadline resulted in a delay in the court proceedings. The attorneys outlined that the defendants were initially granted 14 days leave to file an affidavit in answer. That response should have been filed by January 19, last.
However, the AG Chambers did not meet the initial deadline. The court subsequently granted them more time to file their defence. Failure to do so would have resulted in judgment being granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Again, the lawyers reported that the attorneys from the AG Chambers failed to reach the deadline. An affidavit was then filed until April 10, last.
Additionally, when the matter was called yesterday, the affidavit by SOCU was added to the defence presented by the AG chambers.
But after hearing arguments from both sides, the judge struck out the affidavit by SOCU and granted the AG chambers time to file a new affidavit in response.
The matter will continue on May 15.
In the 15 point endorsement of claim, the Plaintiff had stated that the GRDB requested the company purchase as much paddy available on the market at a price of between $3,000 to $3,300 per bag.
He said that the Rice Development Board had guaranteed, promised and agreed that it would purchase the entire said paddy from the Plaintiff at the price of US$490 per metric tonne.
At the time of purchasing the paddy, the Milling Company noted the GRDB supplied them with $60 million. The cheque for $60 million was handed over to some of the farmers from whom the paddy was purchased under the aforesaid agreement.
However, the sum advanced, the plaintiff claimed, was not enough to pay for all the paddy purchased.
And due to the aforesaid breach, the Plaintiff suffered loss and damage.
The plaintiff therefore claims from the Defendant the following the sum of $99,670,273.
The plaintiff is therefore claiming interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of filing to the date of judgment and thereafter at the rate of four percent per annum until fully paid.
”The costs fixed in the sum of $249,363 such further or other reliefs as the Court may deem just,” the legal document had outlined.