A mother of three, whose house at Tuschen, East Bank Essequibo, was repossessed by the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA) after it claimed she breached the terms under which it was built for her, is moving to court to challenge the decision.
Linda Persaud, who was among a number of persons who have been advised by the CH&PA that their houses would be taken back by the agency for the alleged breach of the terms under which they were built, says she and her children were evicted last December when agency officials reclaimed the property. As a result, Persaud, through attorney Anil Nandlall, will be moving to the constitutional court for declarations that the agency acted without lawful basis and violated her fundamental rights when its agents repossessed her property.
Persaud is also seeking damages in excess of $10M for breach of her fundamental right and freedom not to have her property compulsorily taken possession of without the prompt payment of adequate compensation as is guaranteed to her by Article 142 of the Constitution of Guyana.
Since last November, the CH&PA had written beneficiaries of the agency’s low incoming housing programme advising them that due to non-occupation they had breached the terms under which they had been sold houses and it would move to rescind their sale agreements.
The CH&PA had subsequently defended its move, while explaining that it had seen evidence of persons sub-letting and in one instance, attempting to sell one of the houses.
Nandlall, the former Attorney-General, had said last week that after he was contacted by homeowners he wrote to the CH&PA and informed that it could not lawfully repossess the properties on the ground of non-occupation.
“I made the matter public. I thought that the CH&PA would have abandoned this flagrant unconstitutional pursuit of expropriation of private property. It has now been drawn to my attention that the CH&PA has recently resorted to threats, intimidation, artifice, trickery and deceit in getting persons to hand over to them their Agreements of Sale, Certificates of Title, keys to their premises and inducing them to sign certain documents, without any independent legal advice and without explaining to them the nature, purport and effect of those documents,” he said in a statement, while arguing that a Certificate of Title confers upon its holder absolute ownership of the property to which it relates subject only to registered encumbrances. “A person can only lawfully lose his Certificate of Title if it is established to the satisfaction of a Court of competent jurisdiction that he acquired same fraudulently. Certainly, a person cannot lose his property on the ground of non-occupancy,” he added.
Nandlall also urged the targeted homeowners against submitting to the demands of the CH&PA and instead to seek legal advice and representation.
In her affidavit, Persaud said that by a written Memorandum of Agreement of Sale, dated April 19, 2011, she purchased from the Government of Guyana/ CH&PA Lot 3608 Tuschen Block 8, Lots 2625-4009, at the agreed purchase price of $92,000.
She swore that she fully paid the purchase price upon the signing of the said Memorandum of Agreement of Sale and was issued with a Transport in relation to the said lot of land. By a contract, titled “Contract for the Participation in Core House Pilot in Existing Schemes,” dated March 28, 2014, she said that she purchased from Government of Guyana/ CH&PA a concrete and wooden building. Under the Agreement, she said that she was required to pay and did pay the sum of $100,000 “equity” towards the construction of the core house. The Agreement, she averred, contained a number of terms and/or conditions, including the following: “Upon failure if the beneficiary(ies) to occupy the said property within one month of its delivery, the beneficiary(ies) shall be bound to give up possession of the land and building to the Authority and to re-convey Title to the Central Housing and Planning Authority.”
Persaud noted that that Agreement post-dated her Transport by nearly two years and the terms and conditions of the Agreement were not and were never made conditions of her Transport.
She further said that the house was completed during the month of August, 2014, and she moved in and commenced occupation of the same.
Persaud said that she also spent in excess of $1M to fence and build up and landscape the land and build cupboards, erecting a wall in the house and tiling the washroom floors of the house. She said that at all material times, she has been in occupation of the property along with her children. However, Persaud stated that November 18, 2015, she received a letter from Hannifah Jordan, Attorney-at-Law/ Corporate Secretary of the CH&PA, accusing her of not occupying the building within a month after receipt of the keys and of living elsewhere.
The letter also advised that she was in breach of her obligation to occupy the property within the stipulated period and as a result the CH&PA would be be taking steps to rescind the Agreement. As a result, she was asked to seek a refund of monies paid for the land and equity contribution by submitting her original Housing Allocation Letter, Agreement of Sale for land/building, Certificate of Title to Land, and receipts showing payment no later than December 18, 2015. She was also directed to sign an Originating Summons to cancel Certificate of Title to Land before the High Court to ensure that the property is transferred back to the government.
Persaud noted that the letter said if she failed to act, the CH&PA would have no option but to approach the High Court for an Order seeking redress to have the Certificate of Title to land cancelled.
However, Persaud said she never received a Certificate of Title though at all times had been occupying the premises. She added that prior to the receipt of the letter from the agency, she was never afforded a hearing.
Further, she said that on December 3, 2015, while she was at her mother’s Tuschen premises, because she took ill and she was required to nurse and care for her, her neighbour called and told her that persons were in her home. She said when she travelled to her property, CH&PA agents introduced themselves and informed her that the agency had “repossessed” her property. They also erected a sign on the property, which reads “this is the property of Central Housing and Planning Authority,” she said.
