A second woman has moved to the court to challenge a move by the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA) to repossess her home.
Gaytrie Singh, a single mother of four, has moved to the High Court by way of a motion, asking for, among other things, a conservatory order prohibiting servants and/or agents of the CH&PA or any other officer of the state from interfering with her possession and occupation of her property at Lot 902 Plantation Westminster, Parfaite Harmony. She is also seeking over $10M in damages for what she wants the court to declare are breaches of her constitutional right not to have her property seized without compensation.
According to Singh, CH&PA officials broke and entered her property on November 23, 2015, and erected a signboard that reads, “Notice: Property of the Central Housing and Planning Authority, Order by the CH&PA.” She also says a CH&PA official subsequently took documents from her, including her Certificate of Title and Agreement of Sale, and refused to return them.
Singh is listed as the applicant in the action and the Attorney General is listed as the respondent.
Singh is being represented by attorney Anil Nandlall, who has already filed an action on behalf of another homeowner, Linda Persaud, who was evicted last December when agency officials reclaimed the house where she had been living at Tuschen, East Bank Essequibo.
Since last November, the CH&PA had written beneficiaries of the agency’s low income 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 noting that it had seen evidence of persons sub-letting and, in one instance, attempting to sell one of the houses.
In an affidavit supporting her motion, Singh said that by a written agreement of sale in 2003, she purchased the property from the Government of Guyana/CH&PA for the agreed price of $112,000, which she paid in full upon signing the agreement.
She said that she was then issued with the certificate of title.
Singh goes on to explain that by a contract, titled “Contract for the Participation in Core House Pilot in Existing Schemes,” during 2009 she purchased from the CH&PA a concrete and wooden building at the required cost $100,000 as equity towards the construction of the core house, which she paid in full.
According to Singh, the agreement contained a number of terms and conditions, including, “upon failure of 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.”
Singh, however, contends that the agreement post-dates her certificate of title by nearly six years and therefore, a condition on that agreement of sale cannot affect her certificate of title nor attach to her land.
In any event, she said that upon completion, she moved in and commenced occupation of the core house and that at all material times she has been in occupation of the property along with her children.
Singh said in her affidavit that after returning home from work on November 23 last, she saw the sign on her house indicating that the property belonged to the CH&PA.
She said that the following day, she visited the CH&PA to make enquiries and was informed by a Ms. Hussain that her house and land had been seized by the CH&PA because she was not in occupation.
According to Singh, she then gave Hussain her certificate of title, agreement of sale and other documents relating to the property, after which Hussain requested her to sign certain documents.
Singh goes on to explain in her affidavit that she told Hussain she could not read nor write and so requested that she [Hussain] read the documents to her but the woman refused. She added that Hussain then informed her that she would return the documents only if she signed.
As a result, Singh said she signed the documents, after which Hussain refused to return her certificate of title and agreement of sale.
Nonetheless, Singh said she continues to occupy the house.
Singh is asking the court for declarations that the breaking and entry of her property and the erection of the signboard by CH&PA officials are unlawful and have contravened or are likely to contravene her fundamental right and freedom guaranteed under the constitution.
She is also asking for a declaration that the taking of possession of her Agreement of Sale and Certificate of Title in respect of the property is in violation of her right and freedom, as well as a Declaration that the repossession of her property on the basis of non-occupation is also unlawful and unconstitutional.
She is seeking a conservatory order prohibiting servants or agents of the CH&PA, the Ministry of Housing or any other Officer of the State from entering upon, remaining, occupying or in any manner whatsoever interfering with her quiet and peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of her property.
Singh is also seeking exemplary and aggravated damages as well as 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.
