Critchlow college files injuction against private university on its premises

Last Updated on Friday, 27 March 2026, 19:12 by Writer

A legal showdown has begun between Critchlow Labour College Inc (CLCI) and the University of Excellence, Management and Business Inc (UEMBI) over whether a lease agreement with the CLC’s principal is valid although he allegedly had no authority to do so and it was signed at a time when the college company was struck off the company’s register.

CLCI is asking the High Court to block the UEMBI from constructing anything and cease trespassing on the plot of land on Woolford Avenue, Georgetown that was leased to the college by the Mayor and City Council in 1968.

The case comes up for first hearing on Friday before Justice Fidela Corbin-Lincoln.

According to court papers filed by Attorney-at-Law Roysdale Forde on behalf of CLCI, the institution is also seeking a High Court order that the UEMBI pays compensatory damages at a monthly rental of GY$3,106,000 from September, 2025, and continuing due to the UEMBI’s wrongful possession of property to the rightful owner.

The court is also be asked to order the UEMBI to cease trespassing or remaining in possession of the property because a purported lease agreement that was signed by CLC Principal Ivor English was on behalf of Critchlow Labour College and not CLCI.

The CLCI case is that the purported agreement is a “nullity” because the CLCI was struck off the Companies Register on November 30, 2013 and was restored on November 3, 2025.

The documents state that the commercial lease agreement was dated June 4, 2025 “at a time of the inability” of Critchlow Labour College “to function as a legal entity under the Companies Act”.

“The purported commercial lease agreement was signed by Ivor English, the third named respondent, who was never authorised to act on behalf of the applicant (Critchlow Labour College) at any time whatsoever,” states the court documents.

The Court is also being informed that Mr English was never a director or officer of the college before the college was struck off the register of companies or after it was restored.

Instead, the Court papers say he signed the agreement as principal of Critchlow Labour College Inc. Further, the court is being asked to agree that the purported agreement was between Critchlow Labour College and not Critchlow Labour College Incorporated, and that Mr English never consented to the issuance of any sublease to the UEMBI.

But through his lawyer, Joseph Harmon, the UEMBI President Stanley Paul is maintaining that the lease agreement he inked with the CLC Principal is valid. “In particular I specifically deny the Applicant’s allegation that the Third Respondent, Dr. Ivor B. English, had no authority to negotiate, execute, and/or bind the Applicant to the tenancy arrangement pleaded herein, and I say that at all material times he held himself out, and was represented to me, as the person authorised to act for and bind the Applicant in relation to the premises,” he said.

Mr Paul said in keeping with the agreement, whose initial term is 15 years from June 4, 2025, with automatic renewal, rent was fixed at GY$1 million monthly from September 1, 2025 and advance rent of GY$4 million was paid and acknowledged.

Mr Paul said that executing the commercial lease agreement, receiving the advance rent, and placing the UEMBI into possession, the CLCI and Mr English represented to him that Mr English had authority to negotiate, conclude, sign, and bind the Applicant in relation to the tenancy.

He also said that before that agreement was executed, he had no notice, whether actual or constructive, that Mr English lacked authority to act on behalf of the CLCI “nor did I have any reason to suspect any internal irregularity, want of authority, defect of approval, struck-off status, or want of corporate capacity affecting the Applicant (CLCI).”

But the CLCI is also asking the court to take notice of the fact the UEMBI needed to seek permission from the Town Clerk.

Backed up by an affidavit from Lincoln Lewis, the CLCI seeks an order that construction at Lot XX1 Woolford Avenue by the UEMBI is in breach of the Georgetown Building by-laws, made under the Municipal and District Council Act Cap. 28:01 and construction by that university was not done in compliance with a lawfully approved plan.

Further, a High Court injunction is being sought against the Town Clerk that she breached statutory duty and so failed to ensure that the UEMBI engage in construction at Woolford Avenue.

The CLCI’s building was destroyed by fire on July 31, 2025.

According to the affidavit, the CLCI first learnt of the existence of the aforesaid purported commercial lease around September, 2025, after the UEMBI went onto the CLCI property to engage in construction work without consent of permission and commenced construction and repair work on the college building.

After receiving a complaint from the CLCI, the affidavit also states that the City Engineers Department issued a cease order on December 16, 2025.

But the court is also being told that the UEMBI continued to with construction and or repair works to the CLC’s property in violation of the building codes of the City of Georgetown.

“The aforesaid Notice was prominently placed on buildings by the Building Inspectors of the Second Named Respondent (Town Clerk). At the time of the placing of the aforesaid Notice on the building, the Building Inspectors of the Second Named Respondent told Stanley Paul, the Director of the First Named Respondent (UEMBI) to cease constructions,” states the affidavit by Mr Lewis.

That document also says that on at least three occasions officials from the Town Clerk including the City Engineer visited the building and informed Mr Paul to cease constructions.

The court says the UEMBI refused to act in accordance with the notice and continued in “flagrant violations”.

But Mr Paul said it was only after he had applied to the City Council on August 15, 2025 to conduct works on the building that he was asked for proof of ownership, survey plan, and rates and taxes receipts.

Mr Paul added that he wrote to the CLC and/or Mr English requesting the proof of ownership, survey plan, rates and taxes receipts, and related municipal documents but the CLCI failed, refused, and/or neglected to provide the proof of ownership, survey plan, rates and taxes receipts, and related documents required by the Mayor and City Council.