wrote the secretary of the GCB

micevan1l6

The battle for control of Guyana’s cricket has taken a twist with the region’s court, the CaribbeanChief Justice (ag) Ian ChangCourt of Justice (CCJ), on Monday granting two officials of the Guyana Cricket Board (GCB) 14 days to appeal a December ruling of Chief Justice (ag) Ian Chang.Chang had ruled against the application made by GCB representatives, Robin Singh, and Rajendra Singh, who were contesting the establishment of an Interim Management Committee (IMC) to manage the affairs of cricket in Guyana. That IMC is headed by Guyana’s cricket legend, Clive Lloyd.CCJ in its ruling on Monday said that the GCB officials could file with the Registrar of the Supreme Court a motion seeking such an extension.The GCB officials had approached the CCJ after several court battles. The CCJ action named Guyana’s Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, as the Respondent.It will be recalled that last year, amidst clashes by warring factions of the cricket board, Angela Haniff, Secretary of the Berbice Cricket Board had filed a court action challenging the legality of the election of Ramsay Ali as GCB President, following the June 2011 elections.BITTER STRUGGLEGuyana’s cricketing world had in the lead up to the June GCB elections been involved in a bitter leadership struggle that involved accusations of corruption and mismanagement.At the time, the GCB comprised the Berbice Cricket Board (BCB), the Demerara Cricket Board (DCB) and the Essequibo Cricket Board (ECB), all unincorporated associations, and each entitled to a third of the GCB’s assets in the event of their dissolution of the GCB.  The three sub-Boards were responsible for running cricket in the three counties.Chang ruled on August 22, 2011 that GCB lacked legal credibility. “Since all the parties to this action are no more than representatives of unincorporated umbrella associations which (along with their membership) lack legal personality, this action was misconceived and must be struck out and dismissed.”He also said that there may be the immediate need for the Minister responsible for sports to impose his executive will in the “national interest” until such time as Parliament can provide a more permanent welfare structure.“The Minister can take immediate interim action.”IMCOn December 23, the Minister for Culture, Youth and Sport, Dr. Frank Anthony, wrote the secretary of the GCB, stating that based on the court order of Chang, he had decided to install an IMC “which shall assume the administration of cricket nationally in lieu and in place of the GCB, as the Government continues to explore a more permanent solution to this administrative and legal dilemma.”The Minister had pointed that because of the 2011 General and Regional elections, the business of Parliament was yet to resume.He also ordered the Secretary to immediately cease representing the GCB and immediately deliver to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry all properties, accounts, records connected with the cricket board.Sports Minister, Dr. Frank AnthonyThis caused Mr. Lionel Jaikarran and Mr. Chetram Singh, the two trustees of the GCB, on December 28, 2011 to file an ex parte motion for a court order quashing the Minister’s decision.On December 28 and December 29, last Chang heard the ex parte application and ordered that the application be refused.According to the CCJ ruling on Monday, no written judgment has been given, but Sanjeev Datadin, the GCB’s lawyer said that Chang had applied his ruling in Haniff v Ali regarding the claimants as having no locus standi because they were purporting to represent a body that was a legal non-entity.GCB then made another legal move, renewing the ex parte application on December 30, 2011 by way of a fresh hearing before the Full Court.However, the matter was dismissed on January 25 by the Full Court (Justice William Ramlall and James Bovell Drakes).NO POWERThe court refused an application to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Full Court further indicated that it had no power to give leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.GCB persisted, turning to the Court of Appeal, filing another motion on January 30. The Court of Appeal heard the matter on February 14 but summarily dismissed it, on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an ex parte decision in the light of the wording of section.On March 2, last, GCB approached the CCJ for special leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment of February 14 that it had no jurisdiction to hear any appeal to it in this matter.According to the CCJ in its ruling, in the exceptional circumstances, it is of the belief that no court could properly refuse an application for an extension of time for appealing Chang’s December 29 order.“Due to the seriousness of the issues and the urgency of the matter this Court most exceptionally will exercise the powers of the Court of Appeal in the following manner.“This Court grants the Appellants an extension of time until fourteen days from the delivery of this judgment to file a notice of appeal from the order of Chang CJ (ag) of 29 December 2011, provided the Appellants within seven days of delivery of this judgment file with the Registrar of the Supreme Court a motion seeking such an extension.”