Feb 13 2019
Ronald Khan, the miner who filed a claim at the High Court for a quantity of diamonds which were lodged with police after a robbery but later disappeared, was on Monday awarded $5 million by Justice Fidela Corbin-Lincoln.
In addition to the $5 million, the court also awarded Khan costs in the amount of $200,000.
In 1994, Khan’s mining camp at Ewang Creek, Potaro (Potaro-Siparuni) was robbed of the diamonds, which were subsequently recovered by police and taken to the Mahdia Police Station, where it had been lodged. There, Khan said, he inspected the diamonds and verified the quantity and amount with police officers. After this was done, he said that the officers then transported the items from Mahdia to the ‘E and F’ Division of the Guyana Police Force (GPF). He was later informed that the diamonds were required as exhibits in the criminal trial of the persons charged with the armed robbery of his camp.
Despite the passage of several years, however, Khan said that the GPF was unable to conclude the prosecution of the alleged defendants as some of them had escaped while others died.
Sixteen years after the robbery—by letter of 24th November, 2010, Khan said he, through his attorney, wrote the Commissioner of Police requesting the return of his diamonds. He said that while receipt of his letter was acknowledged, the Commissioner of Police failed to return his property.
According to Khan, despite making several demands, the Attorney General had “failed and or refused,” to return his diamonds and he subsequently moved to the court seeking an order directing the AG and/or the Commissioner of Police to return his diamonds forthwith or, alternatively, an order directing the Commission-er of Police to compensate him for the full value of the diamonds—that being $54,000,000.
In the delivery of her decision on Monday, Justice Corbin-Lincoln accepted that Khan had made a specific and unconditional demand for his diamonds as evidenced by the letter of request sent to the Commissioner of Police on November 24th, 2010.
However, there was no evidence of a response by the Commissioner to the request made on behalf of Mr. Khan for the diamonds to be returned.
It was further noted that though the court found the detainment of the diamonds to have been lawful since they were to be used as exhibits in the case of the persons charged for the robbery, there was no evidence by the defence that indicated that the diamonds were still required for the purposes of any investigation or trial in 2010 when the requests were made or that they are still required.
“In this case, the robbery was perpetrated in 1994, the suspects appeared to have been charged in the same year and the request for the return of the alleged diamonds was made some 16 years later.
“Prosecution of the case, therefore, is unlikely. In all those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the defendants have provided any lawful reason for the continued detention of Mr. Khan’s alleged diamonds after the request for them to be returned,” Justice Corbin-Lincoln added.
She also addressed the matter of limitation, noting that the limitation act began to run in the case one month from November 24th, 2010 as the claim was filed on January 4th, 2011.
“I find the matter is not barred by statute, as the tort of detinue was established. Having found that there was a detention, a demand, and they have not been returned in a reasonable time of demand, or at all, and there is no lawful reason for the continued detention of the diamonds, I am satisfied that the tort of detinue has been established,” she posited.
However, on the issue of assessing the value of the diamonds, Justice Corbin-Lincoln explained that Khan failed to provide substantial evidence to prove the diamonds, which the court accepted to have been 430 carats, were valued $54 million as he claimed.
The absence of such evidence, the judge said, would open the court to make no award of damages, however, she pointed out the importance of distinguishing this case from the usual case of nominal damage awards, where there is technical liability but no loss, adding that in the current case, the problem is simply one of proof, not absence but absence of evidence of the amount.
As a result, Justice Corbin-Lincoln agreed that the court could substitute an award that is justifiable as it was clear that Khan has suffered loss of his property. The judge found that based on research, there is no fixed price for diamonds as they are judged according to quality. This fact, coupled with the absence of evidence with respect to the quality of diamonds, resulted in Khan being award $5 million by the court.
