Court dismisses company’s claim on East Street ‘parking lot’

In a judgement rendered, the Demerara Full Court has dismissed an appeal filed last year by Astroblobe Technology Incorporated (ATI) over a contract it had entered into with the Mayor and Councillors of the City of Georgetown (M&CC) for the provision of paid parking in the capital city.
The Attorney General’s Chambers said on Wednesday that the case has its origin in a High Court application filed on November 23, 2020 by the company, in which it claimed that, pursuant to the contract, it was authorised to operate parking facilities in the “old Georgetown jurisdiction”. The boundaries are the seawalls to the north, Independence Boulevard to the south, Irving Street to the east, and the Demerara River to the west.
ATI, which was represented by Attorney-at-Law Darren Wade, claimed that it had been operating a paid parking lot on the city’s reserve in the vicinity of East Street, South Cummingsburg, and that on November 14, 2020, agents of the Public Works Ministry disrupted its ongoing operations by removing the fence and gate of the parking lot. As a result, the company filed legal action against the Ministry and the M&CC, in which, among things, it sought a declaration that its fundamental rights of protection from deprivation of property and protection against arbitrary entry were infringed; a declaration that the M&CC trespassed on its property; a declaration that the trespass caused loss to its business by unlawful means; and the awarding of damages.
The case was heard by High Court Judge Simone Morris-Ramlall, and on June 14, 2021, she refused most of the orders sought by the company, the statement from the AG’s Chambers reported. Justice Ramlall only declared that there was a trespass on ATI’s property, and awarded it nominal damages of $100,000.
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the High Court, ATI filed an appeal against that decision to the Full Court, which was presided over by Justices Nareshwar Harnanan and Sandil Kissoon. The Justices on Monday dismissed the company’s appeal and awarded $350,000 in costs to the Attorney General.
In a unanimous decision, the Full Court found that the agreement relied upon did neither entitle nor grant to the ATI permission to operate such a facility at East Street, Georgetown in 2007, or at all.
The Justices said there was no evidence as to the operation of a parking facility, as contemplated by the contract. Further, they said there was no evidence before the court to show, eight years after the agreement had been executed, there was an operationalised parking facility at East Street.
The Full Court noted there was no evidence before the court of any loss on the part of the company; no evidence of any alleged income, distribution of monies, any evidence of any deposits to any banks or other facilities, nor the presentation of any financial statement, as envisaged by the agreement.
The statement issued by the Justices said, “This was a case of a deficient claim, equally poor pleadings, and a paucity of evidence for which there was no onus on the Court in an attempt to remedy or salvage same. The [ATI] failed to distinguish between an appeal to the High Court and an appeal to the Full Court.
“This view, on the observations of the Court, has further confirmed in the [ATI] amended Notice of Application made on the 15th December 2021 at paragraph 1(b), which makes specific reference to Part 60:02(1) of the CPR [Civil Procedure Rules] 2016. Part 60:02 has no application to Full Court appeals. It deals distinctly with appeals to the High Court in a specific category of matters. The instant appeal is not an appeal to the High Court, but an appeal to the Full Court, governed by Part 62 of the CPR 2016,” the statement reads.
The Full Court observed that the claim and pleadings in the High Court filed by the company were bare, vague, and devoid of any particulars as to date, time, place, and location; and that equally, the claim for damages as pleaded does not specify or clarify cause of action or declaration that the claim of damages is to follow.
The statement said the Full Court, in its ruling, held that not a single iota of evidence was adduced before the Court at first instance to indicate the income generated, if any, from the company’s purported business monthly. There was no statement of receipts, no financial statement, and no deposit record, as stipulated in the written agreement as provided by the ATI in these proceedings.
These observations as they related to that state of the pleadings in the ATI’s case apply equally to the evidence, the statement said, adding that there was simply a paucity of evidence, or, more accurately, a complete absence of evidence, before the High Court that would have enabled the Full Court to exercise any discretion to grant any orders sought that are now subject to this appeal.
“The [ATI] has failed to provide any evidence it was lawfully in possession of the area where it was operating a parking facility,” the AG’s Chambers noted. (G1)