Bain Loses Bid to Overturn Supreme Court Ruling

NASSAU, BAHAMAS – Coalition of Independents leader Lincoln Bain on Thursday lost a bid to overturn a Supreme Court judgment ordering him to pay $64,000 to a woman who trusted him with her life savings in 2010.

However, the political party leader succeeded in quashing the default prison sentence of 90 days that the judge ordered him to serve if he doesn’t pay.

On December 6, 2021, Justice Cheryl Grant-Thompson found that Bain breached an April 2010 agreement to hold $40,000 in trust for Zinnia Rolle for three years, with 10 percent interest to be calculated annually.

At maturity, Rolle should have received $53, 240, inclusive of interest. By the time the court delivered its judgment, interest had increased the amount owed to $64,000.

In an addendum to the judgment delivered on January 12, 2022, Grant-Thompson said Bain would serve 90 days in prison if he failed to pay the money by February 28.

The Court also found that Bain’s company, Bani Shoe Warehouse, had breached a May 2010 contract with Rolle to sell shoes for her. Under the agreement, Bani would receive a commission on the sales, and Rolle would receive the difference. Rolle was awarded $3,143 for this breach.

Grant-Thompson did not accept that Rolle had paid Bain $40,000 to purchase the Kids Shoe Department.

Grant-Thompson said she did not believe Bain’s claim that an employee had forged his signatures on the agreements at Rolle’s request after his shoe store burned down in November 2010.

The employee admitted to committing the criminal act at the trial; however, he could not reproduce Bain’s signature while on the witness stand.

Lawyers for Bain and Bani Shoe Warehouse sought to have the judgments set aside, claiming that the judge did not properly assess the evidence. They also argued that the judgment was unsafe due to the four-year delay between the taking of the evidence in July and August 2017 and its delivery on December 6, 2021.

Delivering the ruling on behalf of the Court, Sir Michael Barnett said, “In this case, the primary finding of the judge was that the agreements were signed by Mr. Bain. I have already found that the finding was not unreasonable and could not be said to be plainly wrong. In my judgment, however egregious and culpable the delay in this case was, that delay did not prevent the judge from properly evaluating the evidence and making the finding that was determinative of this case.”

Sir Michael said it was “plainly wrong” for the trial judge to make an addendum to her ruling without hearing further arguments.

He said, “I am obliged to note that it is inconceivable that an order with such penal sanctions could have been made without hearing the party adversely affected by the order.”

Attorneys Tanya Wright and Maria Daxon appeared for Bain and Bani.

Trevette Pyfrom represented Rolle.