High Court Judge Nareshwar Harnanan in a recent ruling threw out a lawsuit for $120m brought by businessman Larry Singh, which he claimed was owed by the Ministry of Health for rental of his controversial Sussex Street property which was used as a drug bond.
According to a release from Senior Counsel Andrew Pollard, one of the lawyers who represented the State, the judge dismissed the claim, having found that a notice of termination of the tenancy issued by the health ministry had been properly given.
According to the lawyer, the judge found the tenancy to have been validly terminated, and in the circumstances ruled further that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim since at all material times, “the Ministry had been a statutory tenant.”
Pollard said Justice Harnanan noted that the claim ought not to have been brought in the High Court, but rather, before the Magistrates’ Court before which, by law, such claims must be decided.
The claim involved the controversial Lot 29 Sussex Street, Georgetown Bond, owned by Singh’s Company—Linden Holdings Inc., (LHI) which the Ministry of Health rented for the storage of drugs back in 2016.
On October 31st, of that year, the Ministry wrote the Company (the Clai-mant) terminating the tenancy and notifying that it would be giving up possession of the Bond on November, 1st the following year.
On October 3rd, 2017, the Ministry again wrote to Linden Holdings Inc., reminding of its earlier notice of termination and reiterating that it would be giving up possession of the premises that November.
According to Pollard’s release, the Company responded through its then attorney, former Chief Justice Ian Chang, SC, who informed the Ministry that Linden Holdings had not received the notice of termination, and did not recognize the Ministry as being lawfully entitled to give up possession of the premises.
On the basis of this, Pollard noted the Clai-mant’s contention that if the Ministry did give up possession, Linden Holdings would nevertheless claim the rents payable for the unexpired term of the tenancy.
The Ministry did not actually leave the premises until August, 2018 subsequent to which the Company filed the $120M claim for what it argued was the total outstanding rent owed for the full term of the tenancy up to June 30th, 2019, or 10 months at a rate of $12.6M per month.
The Ministry of Health and the Attorney General who was also listed as a defendant, were represented by Pollard and Solicitor General Nigel Hawke.
The Claimant was represented by attorneys Glenn Hanoman and Joshua Abdool.
Stabroek News had previously reported that one of the main reasons given for the continued rental of the bond was the delay in the completion of a building in Bartica to house a CT scan machine.
A source from the Ministry had said that the equipment had eventually been sent to the community as the facility was completed.
The disclosure in 2016 that the then David Granger-led APNU+AFC government was paying Singh the more than $12 million monthly rental for the bond had attracted significant criticism, especially since Singh had never before run a bond storage operation.
Critics had described the deal as a “sweetheart arrangement” to give business to a PNCR supporter. The PNCR was the largest faction of the Coalition.
There had also been many questions as to how Singh was chosen, given the fact that there was never any public tendering for the rental of the building.
A Cabinet subcommittee was convened after former Public Health Minister Dr. George Norton had been found to have misled the National Assembly on the rental of the bond.
The subcommittee’s report had stated that the lease should be revisited and strengthened and if there was a refusal by landlord LHI, government should give a year’s notice of termination of the lease and build its own facilities in the intervening period.
“With respect to the rental sum of $12,500,000, it is the subcommittee’s considered opinion that the value should be re-assessed as it is likely that a similar facility could be obtained at a lower rate,” the report had said.
The rental of the property was only made public following questions posed by PPP/C parliamentarian Anil Nandlall in the Committee of Supply in August, 2016. At that time, he reminded that over $50 million had already been paid in rent but the bond had never been used.
The deal with Singh to rent the building was said to have been initiated by the APNU+AFC government because extra storage capacity for drugs was needed. This was despite that fact that a government bond existed at Diamond on the East Bank, where more pharmaceuticals could be stored.
Rental of the bond had also formed the basis of a private criminal charge which PPP/C MPs had brought against Norton. The charge was, however, later quashed by the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
