Dear Editor,
I write with reference to a letter by Mr Anil Nandlall in SN of December 2, ’09. ‘The land law should be amended.’
It would appear that that Mr Nandlall would like the present land laws to reflect a proposal that “section 22 of the Deeds Registry Act be amended to include either, (i) that a registered encumbrance includes an agreement of sale and that the necessary amendments be made to permit an agreement of sale to be so registered or, (ii) to add an agreement of sale as one of the categories of matters to which the absolute title which a transport confers shall be subject.”
The proposal does not include anything to combat and prevent fraudulent agreements of sale. Such a proposal to Parliament could further promote fraud and allow attorneys to milk their clients for never-ending fees in a new, cumbersome way of claiming to protect their clients.
There seem to be little or no commitment to make the current system function correctly and effectively to the benefit of the nation. There English and Roman-Dutch land laws have been working effectively for centuries, and these are now under attack. They are no longer ‘harmonious’ in serving the pecuniary interests of Guyana’s attorneys.
A simple and genuine method to protect against fraudulent agreements of sale, would be to place the onus and burden of proof of ownership on sellers. In addition the seller should provide a valid undertaking that he/she has not entered into any multiple agreements of sale for the same land. Such logical steps could hardly be in the attorneys’ best interests. Without such proof the attorneys should bluntly refuse to act on any Agreement of Sale. Obviously, the more complicated the matter the greater the amount of money that could be milked from the poor helpless clients by their attorneys.
Ensuring that all Agreements of Sale are properly tested for fraud and deception is one of the prime obligations of the Land Court, according to a recent pronouncement by Dr Roger Luncheon. Dr Luncheon has announced that testing for deception and fraud would become more rigorous than before. Mr Nandlall’s proposal however, would override such fraud prevention steps.
Yours faithfully,
Mac Mahase
