The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has rejected an appeal from a man who claimed breach of his constitutional rights and sought damages over 91 acres of state land on the Corentyne from which he was removed in 1998.
In 2004, Keshwar Ramlall through his counsel argued that there was a legitimate expectation that he would be given a lease to the land and that this expectation was breached by the State and represented a denial of his rights under Article 144(8) (the right to a fair hearing) of the Guyana Constitution.
Ramlall further contended that that by virtue of the investment he had made in the land he had acquired a property interest which was protected by the Guyana Constitution6 and his eviction from the land was therefore a breach of his right to property described in Article 142 (protection from deprivation of property).
The CCJ disagreed in its ruling delivered on June 6th.
“On the issue of legitimate expectation, it can hardly be denied that any expectation that Mr. Ramlall had entertained would have been subject to the clear provisions of the law under which he was permitted to occupy the land,” the CCJ said. It pointing out that under the State Lands Act,
Section 7(1) of the Regulations, made under Section 17 of the Act, authorises the Commissioner to permit an applicant to take possession of land and to begin work on the land.
“This permission to take possession, however, is tempered by the warning in Regulation 7(2), which provides that any permission so granted shall be at the risk of the applicant where, for any reason, no lease is issued. This warning is buttressed by the fact that the President of the Republic (the statutory authority responsible for granting leases) is not obliged to grant a lease. Mr Ramlall therefore had ample and explicit notice that prior to being granted a lease any expenditures on improvements to the reversion were at his own risk. It is therefore impossible to see how the expectation he claims he had could be regarded as being legitimate when it flew in the face of express statutory provisions,” the CCJ stated.
For the same reason it said it couldn’t agree that Ramlall had acquired an interest in land that was protected by the Constitution.
“As was made clear by RH Luckhoo JA in Ramkishun v Karran Jaikarran, the tenure or property interest enjoyed by a person such as Mr Ramlall who is merely allowed to enter into possession `was of a very limited nature and enjoyed somewhat of a precarious existence depending on the outcome of the application put for the President’s decision’. The nature of the occupation could not be converted into a constitutionally protected proprietary interest merely because the occupant was bold (or some might say, uncharitably so, foolish) enough to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in improving the land in the expectation that a lease would be forthcoming. In principle, the quality of his property interest could not be enhanced merely by the amount of his expenditure when the statute and the Regulations make it clear that his proprietary interest was terminable at any time,” the court ruled.
According to the CCJ’s decision, Ramlall had been let into occupation of approximately 91 acres of State land in Corentyne, Berbice in 1993 and had been encouraged to occupy the land on assurances he had received from the Commis-sioner of Lands and Surveys and the Minister of Agriculture that he would eventually obtain a lease of it from the State.
Based on these assurances, Ramlall said he proceeded to invest a total of US$470,743 to clear and prepare the land for rice cultivation. He claimed that this work was done by 1996 but also acknowledged that a Notice to Quit had been sent to him by the Commissioner on April 27, 1995.
The CCJ related that on September 22, 1998, the State removed Ramlall from the land and a provisional lease was issued to third parties a year later. In 2002, a lease was issued to those parties.
In 2004, the CCJ said that Ramlall filed a claim against the Attorney General for breach of his constitutional rights. After a hearing, the trial judge awarded Ramlall compensatory damages in the amount of $7,500,000 and $100,000 in costs. The sole basis of the award was that the State had breached Ramlall’s legitimate expectations.
The Attorney General appealed the judgment and Ramlall cross-appealed the quantum of damages awarded. The Guyana Court of Appeal, on July 9, 2015, allowed the Attorney General’s appeal, finding that Ramlall, having brought a constitutional motion, could not properly have received damages in public law for the breach of a legitimate expectation.
Dissatisfied, the CCJ said, Ramlall applied for permission to appeal to the CCJ. Under section 6(d) of the Caribbean Court of Justice Act he had a right of appeal but needed to obtain the formal permission of the Guyana Court of Appeal which in turn had the jurisdiction to impose certain conditions. Ramlall obtained such permission on October 5, 2015. As part of the conditions set by the Guyana Court of Appeal he was required to lodge with the Registrar of the Supreme Court, within 90 days, security for costs in the sum of $750,000.
The CCJ said Ramlall was unable to lodge this sum, fell ill and required urgent medical assistance. It said that he apparently exhausted his limited financial resources to obtain treatment in the United States of America.
Although he was still intent on pursuing his appeal he did not ask the Guyana Court of Appeal to vary the conditions that had been attached to the permission to appeal granted by that court. He was of the view that the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction on that issue had been exhausted. As a result, on 28th December 2015 he applied to the CCJ for special leave to appeal and for variation of the conditions accompanying the permission granted by the Court of Appeal since he now wanted to appeal to the CCJ as a poor person in accordance with Rule 10.17 of the Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction Rules (AJR). On 23rd May 2016 the CCJ heard his application and dismissed it on both procedural and substantive grounds. The CCJ ruled that procedurally Ramlall did not comply with the notice requirements. It nonetheless considered the merit of his case and dismissed his appeal.
Justices Saunders, Anderson and Rajnauth-Lee heard the case. Sanjeev Datadin and Jamela Ali appeared for Ramlall and Prithima Kissoon for the Attorney General.
