Latest update February 10th, 2025 2:25 PM
Larry Singh loses bid in challenge to GRA over breach of contract
Businessman Larry Singh
The Full Court of the High Court on Wednesday handed down a decision which essentially upheld a previous ruling against embattled businessman, Lawrence ‘Larry’ Singh for breaching the Procurement Act.
Singh, who made the news last year, over the questionable procurement of multi-million-dollar contract from the State for the rental of drugs bond at Sussex Street Charlestown, had challenged the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) over an alleged breach of agreement of tenancy.
In the Court document, Singh claimed that monies were owed by GRA via an “Agreement of Tenancy.”
The businessman claimed GRA had breached a contract which it entered for the rental of a Camp Street property under Singh’s control. The “Agreement of Tenancy” was a fixed term of three years at US$5,OOO per month.
In its counterclaim GRA asserted that inter alia the contract was improperly entered into since it was not approved by the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board in accordance with the Procurement Act: CAP 73 :05 of the Laws of Guyana.
Justice Diana Insanally dismissed the action on the grounds that “Singh had no authority to enter into the contract of tenancy without permission from the National Procurement and Tender ‘Administration Board in accordance with the provision of the Procurement Act; Chapter 73:05.”
The businessman appealed the ruling before Justices Navindra Singh and Gino Persaud at the Full Court. On Wednesday, in their decision, Justice Singh and Persaud shared differing views on the matter. As a result, of the split judgment of the Full Court, the ruling of Justice Insanally becomes the status quo.
Justice Singh dismissed the businessman’s appeal citing that sections of the Procurement Act give the National Tender Board jurisdiction over procurements including leases in regulated amounts.
The Judge noted that the purported “Agreement of Tenancy” is for a fixed term of three years at US5,OOO. per month.
“The value of the contract is US$180,OOO, since it is for a fixed term of36 months. The value of this contract requires it to be approved by the National Board for it to be a legal contract,” Justice Singh said in his ruling.
He continued that the contract, which was interestingly not exhibited by the Appellant in the High Court proceedings or in this Appeal, does not reflect in any way that it was approved by the National Board.
In fact, he noted that GRA, through its Commissioner General Godfrey Statia, avers in its Affidavit of Defence that no approval was received from the National Board for the contract.
He noted further that the appellant’s contention that Acting Commissioner General, Ingrid Griffith, had “actual, implied or ostensible authority to enter into the tenancy agreement” is not supported by any evidence nor does Singh attempt to highlight or point the Court to the existence of such evidence.
The Judge said that mere existence of the Procurement Act, as discussed above, precludes Acting Commissioner General Ingrid Griffith from possessing any authority to enter into the subject matter contract.
“It appears that the Appellant, in his use of the phrase “ostensible authority”, may be suggesting that he was not aware of the law governing contracts such as this contract, however it is trite law that ignorance of the law does not excuse breaches of the law and certainly one cannot breach the law and then approach the Court for redress.”
Additionally, Justice Singh said that he is of the view that this breach should have been investigated criminally.
“Further, I have observed that the contract, does not state the name of the person signing the it. However, assuming that the contract was signed by Acting Commissioner General Ingrid Griffith as stated by the Appellant, nowhere in the contract is it stated under what authority or in what capacity she signed the contract.”
“In my opinion, the contract, with all of its shortcomings, is highly questionable.”
Justice Persaud in his judgment noted that the trial judge among other things, erred by making findings of fact in the affidavit in the summary proceeding without a trial.
“She could not make such a finding on the affidavit without a trial.”
Persaud said, too that the trial judge also erred in law by finding that Singh was not entitled to claim rent as he was not the legal owner of the property.
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Forward to the past
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News-Guyana’s debt profile, both foreign and domestic, has become a focal point of economic... more
OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus
Antiguan Barbudan Ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The upcoming election... more
Weekend Cartoon
