By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A Bahamian company’s bid to prevent the Government from auctioning off its property to recover tax arrears has been rejected because a sale had already been agreed prior to a previous injunction.

Earl Miller and Miller Enterprise Ltd had sought to have the injunction reinstated in a March 24, 2025, application that also requested the Supreme Court’s permission to proceed with a Judicial Review challenge to the Department of Inland Revenue’s bid to seize and auction off the property where Ron’s Brakes & Muffler Centre was based at Tonique Williams Highway/Bozine Hill.

However, Justice Carla Card-Stubbs, in a May 8, 2025, ruling dismissed both the Judicial Review and application for a fresh injunction after finding that the property had already been auctioned off by the Department of Inland Revenue prior to Miller Enterprise obtaining an initial stay to block the sale on February 19, 2025.

Miller Enterprise, which was represented by former House of Assembly speaker Halson Moultrie, had raced to the Supreme Court in a bid to block the sale of its property to recover tax arrears just six days prior to obtaining that injunction. The verdict did not disclose the amount of unpaid real property tax, but the Department of Inland Revenue succeeded in getting the first injunction dismissed on March 20.

This prompted Mr Miller and Miller Enterprise to seek a fresh injunction, and permission to launch Judicial Review proceedings, four days later. They alleged that the tax authorities’ decision to sell their property was “irregular, an affront to natural justice and unconstitutional” as they had “shown every intention to meet their tax obligations despite unresolved disputes on” the unpaid tax owed.

They further claimed that the Department of Inland Revenue “did not act in good faith” and “abused the process and procedures as set out in the Real Property Tax Act” by exercising the power of sale. Asserting that there was a single bidder, they added: “The said property is classified as an ‘owner-occupied property’ with two ongoing business concerns.

“The defendants acted with total disregard to required and proper notice, and the adverse impact that their actions would have on the businesses’ 23 employees.” Mr Miller and Miller Enterprises alleged that notwithstanding the dispute over how much real property tax was owed, they had made a $200,000 payment on the arrears and intended “to fulfill their tax obligations”.

However, the Department of Inland Revenue argued that “the appeal lacks merit, serves no practical purpose and has no realistic prospect of success” because it sought to challenge the removal of an injunction “that was rendered moot by a completed and irreversible transaction. They no longer hold legal or equitable interest in the subject property, and the appeal, if allowed to proceed, would have no legal effect”.

Shunda Strachan, the Department of Inland Revenue’s head, in a March 3, 2025, affidavit, revealed: “The property was sold at public auction. On November 20, 2024, a sales agreement was executed between the Treasurer of The Bahamas and the eventual purchaser of the subject property.

“On January 22, 2025, the conveyance was executed and the property was conveyed to a purchaser. Notice of sale of the property dated January 23, 2025, was hand delivered to the first claimant. The first claimant was notified that the ‘second defendant had accepted a bid and executed an agreement of sale of the property’.

“A letter dated February 6, 2025, giving notice to vacate within 15 days recited exercise of the power of sale and was hand-delivered to the first claimant on February 6, 2025.” Justice Card-Stubbs, in her ruling, said “the injunction had already been overtaken by events at the time that the claimants sought interlocutory injunctive relief.

“Secondly, the claimants did not, in their application for equitable relief, make full and frank disclosure. Either of those considerations would constitute a sufficient ground for the discharge of the injunction,” she added.

“While the matters of the exercise of the powers of the Treasurer under the Real Property Tax Act might be of public interest or importance, those matters would not arise for determination at the appellate level since they had not arisen for determination in the court below.

“The question to be considered on the discharge of the injunction was whether the court had properly exercised its jurisdiction and discretion in discharging the injunction. These grounds are misconceived and there is no prospect of success on an appeal. There is no issue of public importance that arises that would cause this court to grant leave to appeal.”

As for the renewed injunction bid, Justice Card-Stubbs said: “The effect of a stay would be to maintain an injunction aimed at staying the exercise of a power of sale and the acceptance of bids. The evidence before the court is that the power of sale has already been exercised and that a bid was accepted prior to the obtaining of the injunctive relief.

“Having regard to this court’s determination that the injunction in the terms sought and issued is of no aid to the claimants, and having determined that the court must not act in vain, there seems to me to be no justifiable reason to stay the discharge of the injunction.”