BF News | CPL fixtures blamed for dismissal of TKR teammates appeal of legal matter

Jus­tice Men­don­ca did not ap­pear con­vinced by the ex­pla­na­tion as he point­ed out that the CPL sea­son on­ly re­cent­ly be­gan this month. 

“While I ap­pre­ci­ate they are on the play­ing field, with mixed re­sults in terms of at least one of the ap­pel­lants, they have a mat­ter which re­quired their at­ten­tion. The rules are clear,” Jus­tice Men­don­ca said. 

Not­ing that TKR suf­fered a nar­row one-run de­feat to the St Lu­cia Kings at the Bri­an Lara Crick­et Acad­e­my in Tarou­ba, San Fer­nan­do, on Sun­day night, Jus­tice Men­don­ca sug­gest­ed that they could have re­quest­ed time off from their coach to ad­dress the is­sues with the ap­peal. 

“If they are in­ter­est­ed at all they would ap­ply to have it re­in­stat­ed,” he said. 

As part of their de­ci­sion on the pro­ce­dur­al ap­peal, the pan­el or­dered the duo to pay $1,400 in le­gal costs. 

The law­suit be­tween the duo and busi­ness­man Dave Kan­gal stems from a lease agree­ment for the bar signed by the par­ties in Ju­ly 2020. 

In De­cem­ber, last year, the duo filed a law­suit against Kan­gal al­leg­ing that he im­prop­er­ly sought to re­take con­trol of the bar. 

They claimed that while they ini­tial­ly agreed to pay Kan­gal rent, which would in­crease an­nu­al­ly over the course of the con­tract, they claimed that he agreed to ac­cept re­duced sums due to the clo­sure of bars dur­ing the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic. 

They al­so ap­plied for an in­junc­tion seek­ing to block Kan­gal from ac­cess­ing the lo­ca­tion and from re­mov­ing their stock and equip­ment. 

How­ev­er, the in­junc­tion ap­pli­ca­tion was re­ject­ed by High Court Judge Ricky Rahim in Ju­ly lead­ing to the ap­peal. 

Kan­gal filed a de­fence and counter-claim in which he al­leged that the duo should be pre­vent­ed from pur­su­ing their law­suit as they ad­mit­ted that they still owed him sig­nif­i­cant rent. 

Not­ing that the par­ties en­tered in­to the agree­ment dur­ing the pan­dem­ic, Kan­gal de­nied agree­ing to ac­cept less rent as he claimed that he was still owed al­most $200,000 in ar­rears. 

Kan­gal has ap­plied for a de­fault judge­ment against the duo in his counter-claim as they failed to meet their dead­line for fil­ing their de­fence set by Jus­tice Rahim. 

Jus­tice Rahim is sched­uled to de­ter­mine the duo’s case and Kan­gal’s ap­pli­ca­tion when they come up for a hear­ing be­fore him, next month. 

Kan­gal is be­ing rep­re­sent­ed by Richard Jag­gasar. 

The hec­tic Caribbean Pre­mier League (CPL) sched­ule has been blamed for the dis­missal of Trin­ba­go Knight Rid­ers (TKR) team­mates Sunil Nar­ine and Ter­rence Hinds’ ap­peal over a judge’s de­ci­sion to refuse them an in­junc­tion in their le­gal bat­tle over con­trol of a bar in Pi­ar­co. 

The pro­ce­dur­al ap­peal was dis­missed by Ap­pel­late Judges Al­lan Men­don­ca and James Aboud dur­ing a vir­tu­al hear­ing yes­ter­day morn­ing. 

Dur­ing the brief hear­ing, the ap­peal pan­el ques­tioned the duo’s ab­sence. 

Jus­tice Men­don­ca point­ed out that al­though the duo sig­nalled their in­ten­tion to change their le­gal team two months ago, such was not done. 

He al­so not­ed that the duo missed their ex­tend­ed dead­line to file sub­mis­sions in the ap­peal. 

At­tor­ney Robert Boodoos­ingh, who pre­vi­ous­ly rep­re­sent­ed the duo, re­quest­ed a short ad­journ­ment of the ap­peal as he sug­gest­ed that they were de­layed by their par­tic­i­pa­tion in this year’s on­go­ing CPL com­pe­ti­tion.

Jus­tice Men­don­ca did not ap­pear con­vinced by the ex­pla­na­tion as he point­ed out that the CPL sea­son on­ly re­cent­ly be­gan this month. 

“While I ap­pre­ci­ate they are on the play­ing field, with mixed re­sults in terms of at least one of the ap­pel­lants, they have a mat­ter which re­quired their at­ten­tion. The rules are clear,” Jus­tice Men­don­ca said. 

Not­ing that TKR suf­fered a nar­row one-run de­feat to the St Lu­cia Kings at the Bri­an Lara Crick­et Acad­e­my in Tarou­ba, San Fer­nan­do, on Sun­day night, Jus­tice Men­don­ca sug­gest­ed that they could have re­quest­ed time off from their coach to ad­dress the is­sues with the ap­peal. 

“If they are in­ter­est­ed at all they would ap­ply to have it re­in­stat­ed,” he said. 

As part of their de­ci­sion on the pro­ce­dur­al ap­peal, the pan­el or­dered the duo to pay $1,400 in le­gal costs. 

The law­suit be­tween the duo and busi­ness­man Dave Kan­gal stems from a lease agree­ment for the bar signed by the par­ties in Ju­ly 2020. 

In De­cem­ber, last year, the duo filed a law­suit against Kan­gal al­leg­ing that he im­prop­er­ly sought to re­take con­trol of the bar. 

They claimed that while they ini­tial­ly agreed to pay Kan­gal rent, which would in­crease an­nu­al­ly over the course of the con­tract, they claimed that he agreed to ac­cept re­duced sums due to the clo­sure of bars dur­ing the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic. 

They al­so ap­plied for an in­junc­tion seek­ing to block Kan­gal from ac­cess­ing the lo­ca­tion and from re­mov­ing their stock and equip­ment. 

How­ev­er, the in­junc­tion ap­pli­ca­tion was re­ject­ed by High Court Judge Ricky Rahim in Ju­ly lead­ing to the ap­peal. 

Kan­gal filed a de­fence and counter-claim in which he al­leged that the duo should be pre­vent­ed from pur­su­ing their law­suit as they ad­mit­ted that they still owed him sig­nif­i­cant rent. 

Not­ing that the par­ties en­tered in­to the agree­ment dur­ing the pan­dem­ic, Kan­gal de­nied agree­ing to ac­cept less rent as he claimed that he was still owed al­most $200,000 in ar­rears. 

Kan­gal has ap­plied for a de­fault judge­ment against the duo in his counter-claim as they failed to meet their dead­line for fil­ing their de­fence set by Jus­tice Rahim. 

Jus­tice Rahim is sched­uled to de­ter­mine the duo’s case and Kan­gal’s ap­pli­ca­tion when they come up for a hear­ing be­fore him, next month. 

Kan­gal is be­ing rep­re­sent­ed by Richard Jag­gasar.