High Court rules City Hall unlawfully increased cost of compliance

Feb 11, 2022 News

---

Kaieteur News – Justice, Gino Persaud on Tuesday ruled that the Georgetown City Constabulary unlawfully acted when it announced the 0.5 percent increase for a Certificate-of-Compliance in June 2019 and demanded several documents for the process.
In handing down his ruling, Justice Persaud stated that at the broadest, judicial review is designed to remedy public law wrongs; that is, any unlawful exercise of public law power by a public law body and as such, he commended the Guyana Bar Association (GBA) for filing the public interest litigation bringing it for judicial review.
On June 20, 2019 the Town Clerk of Georgetown, published a Notice to advise the general public of a new policy and the cost of applying for a Certificate of Compliance. Piece of that notice read, “The Mayor and Councillors of the City of Georgetown wishes to inform the public that the cost for a Certificate of Compliance will be increased by 0.5% of the current market valuation of the property…”
According to the notice, when applying for a certificate of compliance, property owners should bring along: 2019 General Rates Receipt; Current Market Valuation; Valid Identification Card along with several other documents.
Following the publication of the notice the aggrieved GBA, wrote to the Town Clerk twice requesting reasons for their decision under the Judicial Review Act, but their letters were ignored. The GBA believed that the decision was unlawful and as such they subsequently moved to the courts in filing the public litigation to challenge the Mayor and City Constabulary (M&CC) decision since they did not accede to the written request for reasons.
It should be noted that the action was for judicial review and it is not in dispute that the GBA have the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court (locus standi) to challenge the decision of the MCC and that the impugned decision is justiciable.
Judicial review is used to determine whether decisions taken or measures adopted in the pursuance of statutory or other public law powers are lawful and valid. Secondly, it may be used to restrain public bodies from acting in an unlawful manner.
The primary issue of the matter which falls for consideration and determination in judicial review proceedings is the legality of the MCC’s decision, questioning if the MCC has the power to make the decision under review or did it exceed its powers and/or jurisdiction and acted ultra vires.
The GBA had approached the High Court seeking the following orders: an Order of Certiorari quashing the decision to bring the documents that were previously listed; a declaration that the aforesaid decision is contrary to law and the policy of Section 16A of the Deeds Registry, Act, Chapter 5:01… and an order of prohibition prohibiting MCC from enforcing and/or acting upon the aforesaid decision and/or demanding the aforesaid fee or documents in order to issue a Certificate of Compliance under Section 16A of the Deeds Registry, Act, Chapter 5:01.
The GBA contended that the documents demanded by MCC are not necessary in order for MCC to ascertain and certify from their records whether rates and taxes have been paid on a particular property up to a specified time. In addition, the demand for the said documents is burdensome, frustrates commerce, superfluous and unnecessarily adds costs and time.
The GBA further contend that the exorbitant fee demanded by MCC for the issuance of the Certificate of Compliance is unreasonable and contrary to the policy and ultra vires Section 16A of the Deeds Registry Act, Chapter 5:01. It was stated that the effect of the decision to raise the fee has proven to be financially detrimental.
Meanwhile, in its defense, the MCC provided the reason for the decision, contending that the MCC’s power/discretion to request the submission of the set of documents is an implied or ancillary power and that the decision is a policy decision to guide them in the grant of certificates of compliance, inter alia.
In handing down his ruling, Justice Persaud stated that the MCC has no statutory power to make the decision it did to raise the fee for a certificate of compliance and to request the additional documents. It had no power or business in making the purported policy decision to levy such a charge. It also had no implied power to do it. The decision was beyond their powers and ultra-vires and void.
As such he ordered and declared that the decision by MCC was unlawful; an order of certiorari be and is hereby granted quashing the decision of MCC; an order of prohibition be and is hereby granted prohibiting MCC from enforcing and/or acting upon the aforesaid decision and/or demanding the aforesaid fee or documents in order to issue a Certificate of Compliance and cost in the sum of $150,000, to the GBA. The GBA was represented by attorney-at-law Kamal Ramkarran, and MCC was represented by attorneys-at-law Roysdale Forde, SC and Dhanwanti Sukhdeo.

---

---