THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. The Claimant’s case is supported by two affidavits from Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, a Director of CCML filed February 14, 2023 and May 5, 2023 as well as an affidavit from Xxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx, another Director of CCML filed May 5, 2023. Xx. Xxxxxx in her Affidavit filed February 14, 2023, asserted that Clause 9 of the 1998 agreement grants CCML the ROFR and the right of pre-emption concerning any proposed transfer. This prohibits any transfer of the property except where CCML has been given the opportunity to re-purchase the subject property. She further asserted that in or around late October 2022, there were rumours that Xxxxxx Xxxx was seizing ownership of the subject property and that there was some transaction in progress for the change of ownership. CCML’s attorneys-at- law were instructed to lodge a Caveat on November 18, 2022 prohibiting registration of any change in the proprietorship or of any dealing in respect of the property. Xx. Xxxxxx stated that a meeting was held on December 15, 2022 between Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxx, the attorneys-at-law for CCML and the attorneys-at-law for Xx. Xxxxxx Xxxx where the existence of a Settlement Agreement and a stamped Instrument of Transfer were disclosed. The Instrument of Transfer listed Xxxxxx Xxxx, Xxxx Xxxx and Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx as transferees and an intention to proceed to lodge the Transfer was expressed. Despite being informed of the ROFR, the 4th to 6th Defendants attended upon the property and informed the staff that they are the new owners of the property. She further stated that by letter dated January 4, 2023, CCML’s attorney-at-law wrote to Xx. Xxxxxx Xxxx’s attorneys-at-law putting them on notice of the intention to commence proceedings to enforce the ROFR and CCML’s readiness to purchase the property at the assessed value of Two Hundred and Twenty-Five Million Jamaican Dollars ($225,000,000.00) however there were no responses. In her May 5, 2023 affidavit, Xx. Xxxxxx stated that despite the injunction being granted by the Court on March 21, 2023, the 4th to 6th Defendants have continued to have possession of the property and their agents attended upon the subject property and have commenced work to remove the kitchen cupboards. In the sole affidavit of Xx. Xxxxx Xxxxx filed on May 5, 2023, he stated that prior to the December 15, 2022 meeting, he contacted Xx. Xxxx Xxxxxxxx regarding rumours he heard that Stocks and Securities Limited was in financial trouble and that the subject property may be at risk of sale...
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. 6) The Claimant in his Claim Form and Particulars of Claim avers that on the 4th February 2004, the defendant “carelessly, recklessly and maliciously printed, published and edited, in the Daily Gleaner of that date an Article which was libelous of him”. The article which was, as noted above, captioned “Blythe’s Firm Sued” contained the words complained of and which have already been set out. It was alleged in the Claim Form that the words were published “knowing the said statements to be false and without belief in its truth and knowing that the same would be to the detriment of the Claimant’s reputation in his professional duties as a medical doctor, a Member of Parliament and Vice President of the People’s National Party in particular and the public in general”.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. [9] The Claimant contends that there was a valid assignment of a debt owed by the Defendant to Sure in the sum of $1,657,000.00. It further contends that the signature of Xxx. Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of the Defendant constituted an absolute and unconditional obligation to pay that debt of $1,657,000.00 and the Defendant is liable to pay this sum notwithstanding any issues which may have arisen as to the ownership of the Drink or the underlying Consignment Agreement by which the Defendant became liable to Sure in the first place.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. 3. The claimant contends that during the course of performing its work as operator, the defendants obstructed and interfered with its operation of the quarry when the lease was terminated.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. [8] The Claimant's case can be summarised as follows: -
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. 15. The Claimant, which is in the business of supplying agricultural supplies and services, alleges that in early September 2003, its directors, Xxxxxxxxx Xxxx and Xxxxx Xxxx attended a meeting at the offices of SMCL which was attended by Xxxx Xxxxxxx, the Chairman of SMCL, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, the Corporate Secretary of SMCL and of the First Defendant and the Third Defendant, a member of the Transition Team. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the possibility of the First Defendant becoming a harvesting contractor which would provide the SMCL with a supply of cane to enable it to meet its production target. The Claimant alleges that at this meeting, the Third Defendant, in response to a question raised by Xx. Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx as to the duration of its contract, responded that "arrangements would be put in place for a long term contract for cultivation for a period of four (4) to five (5) years."
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. [1] The Claimant commenced his employment in Kuala Lumpur as Senior Manager in the Operation Department pursuant to the contract of employment dated 01.03.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. 2. The Claimant, Borde Xxxxxxxx and the Defendant, Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx are the owners of two adjoining parcels of land situate along the Eastern Boundary of the Southern Main Road, Chase Village, Carapichaima. For ease, I shall respectfully refer to them by their first names. Xxxxx claims that at “all times there existed a natural watercourse which provided drainage and acted as a filtration system preventing the development of a catchment area on his premises and the neighbouring lands”. He claimed the natural watercourse “filtered into an underground box drain which facilitated the ease of water through his premises and the neighbouring lands”.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. 4. On 7 September 2011 the parties entered into an agreement (the First Agreement) under which the claimant agreed to perform works described as the Design and Construction of Infrastructure for 800 Housing Units at the Egypt Village Chaguanas Housing Development for the sum of $240,670,583.00.
THE CLAIMANT’S CASE. 13. The Claimant contends that the Defendants are not entitled to the protection of the Act for the following reasons:
