Sedi Defends His Interest in Progresso Heights

Wilfred Elrington

According to Elrington, the submissions were all based on technical arguments in law.  Elrington says that while Schneider attempted to speak on behalf of Progresso Heights by way of the provisions in the article of association, he contends that those articles do not empower Schneider to speak for the company.

Wilfred ’Sedi’ Elrington, Shareholder, Progresso Heights

“The case has closed and the other side has not shown a single resolution.  They are saying that they had, Mr. Schneider is saying that they had authority to speak on behalf of the company by virtue of the provisions in the articles of association.  But again, the articles of association gives him no such authority.  So really and truly, the very legal and technical position that we are taking is that the company, Progresso Heights Limited, is not properly before the court.  It has given no authority to have action taken and it has authorized no one to give evidence on its behalf.”

Reporter

“How was caution placed on the properties or the property in question?  And the other side is making the claim that that was wrongfully done and held or maintained by the registrar.”

Wilfred ‘Sedi’ Elrington

“Yes, those are legal arguments.  The law says that anybody who has a twenty percent interest in a company, I think it’s ten or twenty percent, I have twenty percent and who has an unregistrable interest in it can go and lodge a caveat.  Because I’m a shareholder and I qualify on that regard and because companies exist to make profits for the shareholders, the proceeds of sale of the land is certainly a matter that I have an interest in.  It is deemed from the law that I have looked at to be an interest in land, a minor interest in land but an interest nonetheless.  It’s a technical point and it’s a matter that the court will have to determine.  We will be citing authorities on it, they have cited authorities.  But that is not the concern of mine.  My concern is that these are people who have been operating outside of the law and they have come to court now, but again, they have not shown that they have been complying with the law and therefore the court should not entertain them.”