Wholesale Jerseys USA q2yehd2m

fd9je6mn

Justice William Ramlal yesterday ruled that an injunction filed against five persons, including Stanford All Star cricketer and former Guyana cricketer,Wholesale NFL Jerseys, all-rounder Lennox Cush, be continued.The judge made the ruling after attorneys for the defendants made appearances in the High Court in answer to the injunction which was filed by attorney-at-law Lyndon Amsterdam on behalf of three sisters, Faye Chichester, Sandra Liverpool and Jacqueline Bobb, who all reside in the United States.Appearing before Justice Ramlal were Lennox Hanoman for Phillip Baker; Gentle Elias for Satwattie Barnwell; Abiola Wong for Cush; Attorney General, Senior Counsel, Charles Ramson, for the Registrar of Deeds, and Richard Fields on behalf of the Bank of Nova Scotia who are all defendants in the matter.Justice Ramlal, on February 16, granted an ex-parte injunction against former Guyanese first class and Stanford All Star cricketer Lennox Cush, restraining him, his servants and/or agents from continuing to construct a building on a property located on 55 Second Street, Campbellville.Justice Ramlal also granted another injunction restraining Cush from further mortgaging, selling or in any other way alienating the said property, which was already mortgaged by the cricketer at the Bank of Nova Scotia.A writ of summons was also filed by the plaintiffs, against Phillip Baker, Sarswattie Barnwell, Cush, the Attorney General, Registrar of Deeds and the Bank of Nova Scotia in which they are seeking damages in excess of $1M.Another writ was filed against Phillip Baker for fraud as well as damages in the sum of $1M. The plaintiffs are also seeking to restrain the defendants from trespassing on the said property.Yesterday, Justice Ramlal granted leave to the defendants to file affidavits in answer to the writs.Cush’s lawyer, Abiola Wong, told the court that she had already filed an affidavit in answer but the court was informed that it was not yet before the judge.She then sought leave to make arguments on behalf of the cricketer to discharge the injunction.According to Wong, Cush was an “innocent purchaser for value without notice” and as such he had received indefeasible title and the court ought not to have granted the injunction.She pointed out that there was no indication in the injunction to suggest that Cush was involved in the alleged fraudulent act of Phillip Baker or had knowledge of it.Baker is alleged to have obtained prescriptive title for the property by fraud and subsequently sold it to Barnwell who in turn sold it to Cush.Attorney for the plaintiffs, Lyndon Amsterdam, in response to the submissions made by Cush’s attorney, submitted that the cricketer did have knowledge that his clients were asserting their rights to property and contending that they were the rightful owners of the property.Amsterdam explained to the court that since July 8, 2008, the plaintiffs had filed a notice of opposition, opposing the passing of transport from Barnwell to Cush. The court was told that in that notice the plaintiffs had stated that Baker had obtained title to the property in 2004 by fraud.Amsterdam pointed out that even though the opposition had become abandoned (no action filed on behalf of the plaintiff), the opposition was notice to Cush. Having heard the arguments, Justice Ramlal ruled that the injunction should continue.The parties are to return to court on March 31for further hearing.