Singh v Pouderoyen Village Council

• Jurisdiction: Guyana
• Judge: Gordon, J.
• Judgment Date: 13 December 1960
• Neutral Citation: GY 1960 HC 43
• Court: High Court (Guyana)
• Date: 13 December 1960

High Court

Gordon, J.

Singh

and

Pouderoyen Village Council

G. M. Farnum ( Dr F. W. H. Ramsahoye with him) for the plaintiffs.

J. H. S. Elliott, Q.C., for the defendants.

Administrative law - Local Government-Appraisement-Statutory notice requiring proprietors to submit information on printed, form-Forms only obtainable from village office on one morning and during working hours-Many villagers worked away from village-Notice and appraisement bad-Local Government Ordinance, Cap. 150, ss. 96, 97, 98, 101.

Gordon, J.

1 In these actions, which by an order made by the court on the 3rd October, 1960, have been consolidated, the plaintiffs who are all ratepayers of the Pouderoyen Village District claim:-

• (a) a declaration that the appraisements made by the local authority of the Pouderoyen Village District in respect of the year 1960 are all null and void and that it is not competent for the said local authority to recover such taxes from the ratepayers within the jurisdiction of the said local authority;

• (b) an injunction restraining the local authority, their servants and or agents, from recovering such taxes by legal process or otherwise.

2 In support of their claim the plaintiffs alleged that the provisions of ss. 96, 97 and 98 of the Local Government Ordinance, Cap. 150 (hereinafter referred to in this judgment as “the Ordinance”) were not complied with by the defendants when making the purported appraisements.

3 By way of defence the defendants, who are the authority under the Local Government Ordinance authorised to collect taxes, contend that the provisions of the Ordinance were complied with.

4 A great deal of evidence was heard on both sides. The court does not propose to deal with the evidence in detail, beyond commenting on the startling number of villagers who have willingly come forward to give evidence, which was obviously untrue.

5 On the evidence the court has found the following facts:-

1

In keeping with a decision regularly taken at a meeting of the defendant Council to levy rates on houses in the village in order to meet current expenditure two persons, James Morgan and Simon Anderson, were appointed appraisers, and their names, posted up in accordance with subs. 3 of s. 96 of the Ordinance. 2. The intention of the Council to levy rates on houses was communicated to the villagers at two public meetings which took place in a local hall, and which were attended by a considerable number of villagers. The reaction of the villagers to this tax on houses, which was being imposed for the first time, was clearly unfavourable and the idea not at all welcome. 3. The Council acting through their secretary-overseer posted notices signed by the chairman, which purported to comply with s. 97 of the Ordinance. (This notice will be the subject of comment at a later stage of this judgment.) 4. Notice of the day on which...