CRICKET West Indies (CWI) will appeal a High Court ruling in Guyana on August 5, which declared the nomination and election of Azim Bassarath as CWI vice-president in March 2023, “null, void and of no legal effect.”
A statement from the region’s governing body on August 5 said its legal team will “immediately file an appeal, and will await the decision of the appellate court.”
CWI’s decision comes after High Court judge Justice Navindra Singh ruled that Bassarath’s election as vice-president was contrary to CWI’s Articles of Association and the laws and rules governing elections.
A statement by Guyana Cricket Board’s (GCB) counsel on this matter outlined the reasons which led up to the judge’s decision, and CWI’s appeal.
Additionally, a second GCB statement on August 5 also confirmed that they were not “privy to any meeting of the CWI directors where the decision was made to file an appeal against the ruling of the learned judge”.
GCB, like all other territorial boards, is a full member shareholder of CWI.
Firstly, Bassarath was appointed CWI vice-president at the association’s annual general meeting in Antigua on March 23, 2023. Current CWI president Kishore Shallow was also elected at the AGM; both for two-year terms.
A GCB statement said they did nominate Bassarath for the deputy post in January 2023 but withdrew the nomination in writing before the election because of “certain reports/information received” by them in relation to Bassarath’s “conduct as president of the TT Cricket Board.”
At the election, GCB made objections to Bassarath’s nomination but CWI returning officer Gregory Nicholls and a “selected few immediate past directors of CWI” met in a “huddle” and still elected him vice-president.
The GCB said they wrote CWI several letters highlighting their “wrongdoing” but refused to “correct the wrong” over one year later.
Hailing Bassarath’s election “unlawful”, the GCB approached the Guyana High Court for redress.
“Bassarath, Nicholls and CWI were named as respondents in the High Court action and notwithstanding that they were served with the proceedings in May 2024 and June 2024, they did not file any defences of applications prior to the first court hearing in July 5, 2024,” the release read.
It added that the High Court granted further time for them to do so but they did not within the court’s fixed timeline. The matter was adjourned to August 5.
However, on August 2, CWI filed an application challenging the court’s jurisdiction and claiming the matter should be referred to arbitration. This was opposed by GCB counsel Arudranauth Gossai.
The statement added that judge Singh said CWI’s “application to challenge the jurisdiction was made out of time and that there was no application for an extension of time to file that application (to challenge jurisdiction) and neither was there an application for relief from sanctions for failing to file the application within the timeline.”
Neither respondent attended the August 5 hearing physically or virtually.
In response to CWI’
