Chief Justice rules in Jaguar Paw vs. NICH/David Gegg
The controversial contract signed between Diane Haylock on behalf of NICH and David Gegg’s Cruise Solutions wound up in court today. Chief Justice Abdulai Conteh ruled that the contract does not conform to the NICH act. The concession agreement was signed between Haylock and Gegg in June of 2008 and provided exclusive rights for the construction of a facility in the Nohoch Che’en Archaeological Reserve. Jaguar Paw was against the structure because its location would hurt their business. And in respect of a ten dollar fee that Jaguar Paw was paying NICH for each person taken to Nohoch Che’en, the CJ contended that those monies were collected illegally. While Jaguar Paw can claim victory in the case, attorney Michel Chebat who represented Diane Haylock and David Gegg doesn’t count it as a loss.
Michel Chebat, Attorney for Diane Haylock/David Gegg
“It does not affect our clients. Actually the court found that there is no cause of action between the claimants and Diane Haylock. And secondly, the court did not find any illegality with the contract that was signed between NICH and Cruise Solutions.”
Elson Kaseke, Attorney for Jaguar Paw
“The court did find that there was a—that the contract between Cruise Solutions and NICH was not signed in accordance with the NICH Act. And it directed NICH that all contracts which NICH would enter into should be executed in accordance with the NICH act, including the contract that was signed with Cruise Solutions.”
Marion Ali
“Does that mean the contract that was signed was void or invalid?”
Elson Kaseke
“It is void. They have to do it in accordance with the NICH act. That’s what the judgement says. But most significantly, the court did find that NICH was illegally collecting the ten dollar fee, which they were collecting at the gate for people to enter what they call the Nohoch Che’en Archaeological reserve. That was declared by the court that they illegally collected. However, the court says that because of some special circumstances, the court was not prepared to order a refund of that money to Jaguar Paw.”
Dona Young, Jaguar Paw
“I’m very, very happy because now we can run our business as we should; as we did before the park ever came. We’ve lost a lot of business because of the park and we don’t use that facility and why should we have to pay ten dollars to run a trip that we created in 1992? It’s a victory, it really is because an additional ten dollars per person for everyone who comes to our hotel. Of course, we have to increase our prices. We can’t compete with the people at the park because they have no overhead.”
While NICH has been ordered to cover the cost of Jaguar Paw’s two lawyers, Jaguar Paw was also directed to pay Diane Haylock’s legal fees in the amount of ten thousand dollars.
