Karl Mecklenburg Broncos Jersey pivkn442

nice6boyt7

The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has overruled a judgment passed at the Guyana Court of Appeal on December 12, 2011. The matter which involves the sale of a Toyota Land Cruiser reached the regional law institute after the defendant in the matter felt that he was being shortchanged by the judgment of the Court of Appeal.The defendant further felt that he was wrongfully denied the opportunity to appeal a High Court ruling.The CCJ however ruled in favour of the defendant citing discrepancies in the write up of court documents and the failure of the ruling judges to take into consideration certain facts of the matter.The appeal to the CCJ was made by Kampta Narine called “Mohan”. On November 2008, Narine sold and delivered to Gupraj Persaud one Toyota Land Cruiser (1994) for the sum of $5M. The buyer, Persaud,Reggie White Packers Jersey, agreed to take the vehicle from Lethem where the transaction was conducted, to Georgetown within a month of the transaction after the relevant documentation was handed over.It was however noted that shortly after the purchase,Greg Lloyd Steelers Jersey, the Land Cruiser developed engine problems, costing the new owner an additional $700,Paul Hornung Packers Jersey,000 to effect the repairs. In January 2009,Jerome Bettis Steelers Jersey, Narine eventually delivered the vehicle documentation as promised.But it was in May of that same year that discrepancies came about when Persaud went to the Licensing Department of Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) to purchase a current road license for the vehicle. According to GRA the certificate for the vehicle was forged and the import duties and taxes were never paid. The vehicle was thus confiscated after the revenue authorities said that it was smuggled into the country.Narine denied selling Persaud the vehicle. He claimed that he became aware of a written agreement of sale and purchase between Persaud and an unknown Venezuelan since he signed as a witness to the transaction.It was then that Persaud approached the High Court seeking a refund of $5.7 million from Narine. The matter was heard by Justice Rishi Persaud and after various adjournments, in February 2008 in the absence of Narine and his attorney,Vic Beasley Jr Falcons Jersey, Glen Hanoman, the Judge ruled that Narine should pay back Persaud $5M,Austin Hooper Falcons Jersey, since the additional $700,000 was not established.It was however recorded in the court’s office copy that the judge had ordered Narine to pay Persaud $5.7 million together with a fixed sum of $50,Brett Favre Falcons Jersey,000.In a bid to rectify the discrepancies,Jordy Nelson Packers Jersey, Narine approached the Court of Appeal. But since the trial Judge’s ruling, that court had not heard an appeal of the matter. Narine went further to appeal to the Court of Appeal time to make an application to the CCJ. He was however denied leave to appeal to the CCJ and further denied an extension of time to do so.The Court of Appeal felt that the appeal to the CCJ was not relevant since the proposed appeal was based on the decision of the Court of Appeal refusing the defendant leave to appeal the matter.It is noted that the Court of Appeal will grant leave to the CCJ where it is established that there had been an egregious error of law or a substantial miscarriage of Justice. Apart from that, the Court of Appeal felt that  Narine had not put forward compelling reasoning as to why he had not filed his appeal within six weeks of the High Court ruling; stating that facts for an extension of time were neither “good, substantial nor extraordinary.”The CCJ however ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the matter since “equally broad terms reserve an unlimited residual discretion to miscarriages of justice. It permits application of special leave to the CCJ from “any decision of the Court of Appeal” even if it is not possible for such a decision to proceed on appeal to the CCJ…”It explained that “any decision” comfortably embraced a refusal by the Court of Appeal to appeal itself out of time. The CCJ thus heard the application and treated it as the hearing of the appeal made to the court.The CCJ said it will set aside the order of the Court of Appeal refusing the extension of time for Narine to appeal to the Court of Appeal and granted an extension of time for filing the appeal.The ruling was made in favour of Narine since the CCJ felt that the Court of Appeal made its ruling but did not consider if at the time the vehicle purchase, whether Persaud had knowledge pertaining to the alleged illegalities of the transaction.Apart from that, the CCJ found that an investigation should have been launched as to whether the transaction was tainted with illegality and the respective states of mind of the parties to the transaction.The CCJ also found that an error was obvious pertaining to the $700,000 sum which was written up but not granted by the High Court Judge. The court said the transaction was not enforceable in a court of law.Persaud,Martellus Bennett Patriots Jersey, according to the CCJ, had to bear the cost of the application which was made on November 9 last.