The documents were submitted and GGMC told Diamond Quarry that its application had been ‘favourably considered’ but later in February, 2015 said Baracara had applied for the same land and that the land would have to be divided between the two quarry companies.
Diamond Quarry had approached the High Court of Guyana alleging that GGMC’s decision to subdivide the land was grossly unfair and based on favouritism – something which the court had agreed and ordered GGMC to quash the decision to subdivide the land; grant the licence to Diamond; and not grant a licence to the land to anyone else.
GGMC appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders of the High Court except that it sent Diamond’s application back to be considered by the GGMC but GGMC then asked the CCJ to reverse the Court of Appeal’s decision.
In their judgment, the CCJ found that the land for which Diamond Quarry had applied, had not been applied for by anyone else, but that GGMC had nonetheless decided to subdivide the land between Diamond and Baracara.
“The Court considered that this was unfair and unlawful because the GGMC had created a legitimate expectation that it would grant the licence to Diamond and had not presented any compelling public interest for not doing so,” the CCJ contended.
In the circumstances, the Court considered that it was appropriate to restore the order of the High Court and to require the GGMC to issue the quarry licence to Diamond Quarry. The GGMC was also required to pay the costs of the appeal.
Justice Adrian Saunders, President of the Court and Justices Jacob Wit, Winston Anderson, Maureen Rajnauth-Lee, and Andrew Burgess heard the matter and Justice Winston Anderson delivered the judgment.
Hari Ramkarran SC and Kamal Ramkarran appeared for the appellant while Edward Luckhoo SC, Timothy Jonas SC, and Eleanor Luckhoo appeared for the first respondent.
