Tweet
CENTRAL Jamaica businessman 
Kenneth <span style="font-weight: bold">'Skeng Don' </span>Black has <span style="font-weight: bold">been awarded $200 million in a default judgemen</span>t by the Supreme Court against the Housing Agency of Jamaica (HAJ).
Black, principal owner of Manchester-based Black Brothers Ltd, took the agency to court last year to recover money that <span style="font-weight: bold">he said was owed to him for construction work done under the previous People's National Party (PNP) administration.</span>
Black, a mystery man whose name is well known but of whom much is not, 
has been a long-standing and devout PNP supporter.
However, the businessman will not be able to pop the champagne bottle as yet, as the HAJ, formerly the National Housing Development Corporation, has mounted a defence and will ask the Court of Appeal to rule otherwise.
HAJ lawyer, Patrick Foster, told the Sunday Observer that the agency was all prepared to mount a challenge and make a counter claim.
"We have applied to the court to set aside the judgement, file a defence and enter a counter claim," Foster confirmed.
Black, in a rare interview, said the case came out of a "personal thing" against him
"It's some sort of victimisation," he said.
Black sued the Housing Agency in May of last year, in a bid to recover over $200 million, which he said was owed to him for work done on construction projects.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Black undertook several projects for the Government during the administrations of P J Patterson and Portia Simpson Miller, stretching from the 1990s. They have worked with several Provident Societies under the Operation Pride programme, most of which the then NHDC managed and financed.</span>
Some of those contracts were questioned by other interests in the construction sector, who cited Black's well known closeness to the PNP as the reason for his landing the jobs.
But his inability to collect outstanding monies owed for work done led him to take the legal route.
The main job for which he is owed is the Whitehall housing project near Negril in Westmoreland.
Once widely regarded as a booming squatter settlement characterised by illegal construction of dwelling houses, the Whitehall project was regularised by housing authorities and is now a fast developing community.
When news emerged last year about the claim made by Black Brothers on the HAJ, the agency's managing director, Joseph Shoucair, acknowledged that there were differences, but said that the organisation was willing to settle the matter.
"There is a claim by Black Brothers and we had some difficulties with the claim," Shoucair said then.
"We have made the appropriate recommendation as to how it should be dealt with. We have some concerns about it and we have expressed those concerns," he said.
But Black's lawyer, former crown counsel Gayle Nelson, indicated that he would vigorously defend the award made on behalf of his client.
"We got a default judgement, because when we filed a claim they did not file a defence in time. As a result, we got a default judgement in accordance with the rules.
"Their lawyers asked the court's permission to hear arguments with a view to filing a defence, but when we go to court we will oppose any granting of permission to file a defence out of time. They really have no defence and all of this is dragging out the thing," Nelson charged.
"...This is real money we are talking about. Mr Black has equipment that nobody else in Jamaica has and he must be paid for the work that he did," said Nelson.
However, lawyer for the HAJ, Patrick Foster, told the Sunday Observer that the agency was all prepared to mount a challenge and make a counter claim.
"We have applied to the court to set aside the judgement, file a defence and enter a counter claim," Foster confirmed.
"They served us the court documents and gave us 42 days to file a defence, but we called Mr Black's lawyers and asked for consent to file the defence out of time (meaning later than the customary 42 days).
"The judgement was entered at the end of the 42nd day," Foster said.
An argument put forward by the HAJ is that Black Brothers should have claimed payment from one of the Provident Societies for which it worked, instead of the HAJ. The defence has dismissed that view.
"Documents show that it is the Provident Society and not the Housing Agency that they have the contract with," Foster said.
Both parties will return to court in December to present arguments.
Shoucair, too, was brimming with confidence about the case, saying: "We believe we have a good case and we want the judgement to be set aside."
No stranger to high-profile lawsuits, Black in his most famous legal action, flung former Prime Minister Edward Seaga, then in Opposition, before the Supreme Court over defamatory statements that the ex-JLP leader made about him at a public function in 2001.
Both parties agreed not to proceed to trial and a judge of the Supreme Court ruled in December 2003 that the elder statesman should apologise to Black on television, two radio stations and major-circulation newspapers.
Seaga was also ordered to pay legal costs amounting to $500,000.
Kenneth <span style="font-weight: bold">'Skeng Don' </span>Black has <span style="font-weight: bold">been awarded $200 million in a default judgemen</span>t by the Supreme Court against the Housing Agency of Jamaica (HAJ).Black, principal owner of Manchester-based Black Brothers Ltd, took the agency to court last year to recover money that <span style="font-weight: bold">he said was owed to him for construction work done under the previous People's National Party (PNP) administration.</span>
Black, a mystery man whose name is well known but of whom much is not,
has been a long-standing and devout PNP supporter.However, the businessman will not be able to pop the champagne bottle as yet, as the HAJ, formerly the National Housing Development Corporation, has mounted a defence and will ask the Court of Appeal to rule otherwise.
HAJ lawyer, Patrick Foster, told the Sunday Observer that the agency was all prepared to mount a challenge and make a counter claim.
"We have applied to the court to set aside the judgement, file a defence and enter a counter claim," Foster confirmed.
Black, in a rare interview, said the case came out of a "personal thing" against him
"It's some sort of victimisation," he said.
Black sued the Housing Agency in May of last year, in a bid to recover over $200 million, which he said was owed to him for work done on construction projects.
<span style="font-weight: bold">Black undertook several projects for the Government during the administrations of P J Patterson and Portia Simpson Miller, stretching from the 1990s. They have worked with several Provident Societies under the Operation Pride programme, most of which the then NHDC managed and financed.</span>
Some of those contracts were questioned by other interests in the construction sector, who cited Black's well known closeness to the PNP as the reason for his landing the jobs.
But his inability to collect outstanding monies owed for work done led him to take the legal route.
The main job for which he is owed is the Whitehall housing project near Negril in Westmoreland.
Once widely regarded as a booming squatter settlement characterised by illegal construction of dwelling houses, the Whitehall project was regularised by housing authorities and is now a fast developing community.
When news emerged last year about the claim made by Black Brothers on the HAJ, the agency's managing director, Joseph Shoucair, acknowledged that there were differences, but said that the organisation was willing to settle the matter.
"There is a claim by Black Brothers and we had some difficulties with the claim," Shoucair said then.
"We have made the appropriate recommendation as to how it should be dealt with. We have some concerns about it and we have expressed those concerns," he said.
But Black's lawyer, former crown counsel Gayle Nelson, indicated that he would vigorously defend the award made on behalf of his client.
"We got a default judgement, because when we filed a claim they did not file a defence in time. As a result, we got a default judgement in accordance with the rules.
"Their lawyers asked the court's permission to hear arguments with a view to filing a defence, but when we go to court we will oppose any granting of permission to file a defence out of time. They really have no defence and all of this is dragging out the thing," Nelson charged.
"...This is real money we are talking about. Mr Black has equipment that nobody else in Jamaica has and he must be paid for the work that he did," said Nelson.
However, lawyer for the HAJ, Patrick Foster, told the Sunday Observer that the agency was all prepared to mount a challenge and make a counter claim.
"We have applied to the court to set aside the judgement, file a defence and enter a counter claim," Foster confirmed.
"They served us the court documents and gave us 42 days to file a defence, but we called Mr Black's lawyers and asked for consent to file the defence out of time (meaning later than the customary 42 days).
"The judgement was entered at the end of the 42nd day," Foster said.
An argument put forward by the HAJ is that Black Brothers should have claimed payment from one of the Provident Societies for which it worked, instead of the HAJ. The defence has dismissed that view.
"Documents show that it is the Provident Society and not the Housing Agency that they have the contract with," Foster said.
Both parties will return to court in December to present arguments.
Shoucair, too, was brimming with confidence about the case, saying: "We believe we have a good case and we want the judgement to be set aside."
No stranger to high-profile lawsuits, Black in his most famous legal action, flung former Prime Minister Edward Seaga, then in Opposition, before the Supreme Court over defamatory statements that the ex-JLP leader made about him at a public function in 2001.
Both parties agreed not to proceed to trial and a judge of the Supreme Court ruled in December 2003 that the elder statesman should apologise to Black on television, two radio stations and major-circulation newspapers.
Seaga was also ordered to pay legal costs amounting to $500,000.