Essequibo Rice Miller $99 million lawsuit...Court rules in favour of State, says affidavit properly filed and served

Essequibo Rice Miller $99 million lawsuit…Court rules in favour of State, says affidavit properly filed and served

Jul 24, 2017 News

After reading the affidavits and submissions by both plaintiff and defendant, in the case of the State versus Essequibo Rice Miller, Arnold Sankar, Justice Diana Insanally has deemed the Affidavit of Defence as being properly filed and served.
The Court ruled on Friday that despite the fact that the Defence filed by the State was outside of the time as specified by the Unless Order, the court was satisfied as to the reasons for the delay in filing the defence and took into account the sums claimed by the plaintiff which is in excess of $99 million. The matter is now set for case management in September.
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 (the State) is represented by Attorneys from the Chambers of the Attorney General.
Some months ago, an attempt was made by the Special Organised Crime Unit, (SOCU) to be inserted in a legal battle between the State and the rice miller. The affidavit by SOCU was eventually struck out after lawyers for the businessman, Manoj Narayan and Rajendra Jaigobin, objected on the grounds that SOCU has no locus standi in the matter.
The attorneys had instead called for judgment to be granted in the matter.
The lawyers based their arguments on the defendant’s failure to meet the court’s deadline in filing their affidavit in response.
They had 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 had failed to reach the deadline. An affidavit was then filed.
Earlier Attorneys from both sides made submissions before Justice Insanally, with the State contending that among the reasons for the delay was the issue of having SOCU joined in the action.
Sankar’s lawyers nonetheless maintained that judgment should be granted in favour of their client given those delays. During last Friday’s hearing, the State was represented by Mrs. Judy Stuart-Adonis whilst Mr. Rajendra Jaigobin appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News