Hamlyn,
T.C.C.J.:—
These
procedural
motions
are
in
relation
to
certain
appeals
from
an
assessment
decision
of
the
Minister
of
National
Revenue
wherein
the
sale
of
a
particular
real
property
was
assessed
to
be
on
revenue
account
as
opposed
to
the
appellant's
contention
that
the
sale
of
the
property
was
on
Capital
account.
The
motions
and
cross
motions
before
the
Court
are
nine
in
number
with
35
points
in
issue.
Oral
reasons
were
given
at
the
hearing
and
this
hereinafter
merely
summarizes
those
findings.
Three
motions
filed
first
by
the
respondent
asked
that
the
appellant's
appeals
be
dismissed
for
failure
to
file
a
list
of
documents
in
accordance
with
the
rules
of
this
Court
and
in
accordance
with
an
order
of
this
Court.
Thereafter
three
motions
were
filed
by
the
appellant
asking
for
several
headings
of
relief
in
relation
to
prior
orders,
including
a
requested
change
of
a
fixed
trial
date
as
well
as
demands
for
relief
for
other
perceived
procedural
problems.
This
was
followed
by
three
other
cross
motions
by
the
appellant
in
response
to
the
respondent's
above
noted
motions
for
dismissal.
In
essence,
the
respondent's
motions
are
well
founded,
that
is,
the
appellant
has
failed
to
file
a
list
of
documents
in
accordance
with
the
rules
of
this
Court
and
an
order
of
this
Court.
The
explanation
that
was
tenuously
offered
in
the
myriad
of
confused
submissions,
that
no
documents
were
available,
is
without
merit
given
the
obvious
complexity
of
the
transaction
and
facts.
The
motions
of
the
appellant
and
his
cross
motions
to
the
respondent's
motions
for
dismissal
are
not
well
founded.
The
respective
requests
for
relief
including
further
adjournments,
new
trial
dates,
other
discoveries
and
examinations
and
non
legal
representation
other
than
self
representation
have
been
previously
dealt
with
in
other
motions
and
orders
of
this
Court
in
these
appeals.
Specifically,
the
appellant
to
argue
he
has
a
right
of
examination
and
document
discovery
in
other
appeals
that
are
not
joined
nor
consolidated
with
his
appeals
is
without
foundation.
The
appellant
in
the
present
appeals
successfully
fought
a
consolidation
motion,
as
such,
he
has
no
right
nor
implied
right
of
discovery
or
examination
to
appellants
not
party
to
nor
consolidated
with
nor
joined
with
his
respective
appeals.
It
is
the
responsibility
of
the
appellant
to
prosecute
his
appeals
without
delay
and
with
due
dispatch
within
the
prescribed
rules.
The
appellant
in
these
appeals
has
not
been
proactive
but
merely
reactive.
The
appellant
has
not
filed
the
list
of
documents
in
accordance
with
the
rules
nor
in
compliance
with
a
specific
Court
order.
The
explanation
given,
as
reviewed,
is
without
merit.
The
total
effect
of
the
appellant's
conduct
of
the
appeals
is
by
deliberate
intentional
action
to
delay
the
prosecution
of
the
appeals.
The
conclusion
is
that
the
appellant
has
not
provided
a
reasonable
excuse
for
non
compliance
nor
has
he
made
any
attempt
whatsoever
to
comply
with
the
rules
or
the
order
of
this
Court,
as
such
this
Court
is
left
with
no
alternative
but
to
dismiss
the
appeals
in
relation
to
the
1986,
1987,
1988
and
1989
taxation
years.
Costs
have
been
demanded
however
in
view
of
all
circumstances
there
will
be
no
order.
The
motions
of
the
appellant
and
the
cross
motions
of
the
appellant
are
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content