On October 26th of last year, High Court Judge Nareshwar Harnanan had given Pritipaul Singh Investments (PSI) three months to completely vacate the piece of waterfront Providence land which Demerara Contractors and Engineers Limited (DCEL) said had always been legally theirs.
Almost seven months later, PSI is yet to remove from the East Bank Demerara site over which it is currently being accused of intimidation by DCEL (the Claimant) which had filed the court action against it.
Justice Harnanan had made it clear in his order entered on January 7th of this year that the defendant vacate the land on or before November 30th, 2020.
The Judge had also issued an order to PSI to remove all its materials and equipment no later than that date, declaring further thereafter, through the issuance of an injunction, that neither PSI nor its servants/agents are to enter on the land.
PSI was then ordered to pay DCEL prescribed costs to the tune of $4,600,000 based on the value of a dismissed counterclaim it (PSI) had brought. Additionally, the defendant was ordered to pay the claimant general damages for trespass in the sum of $2,000,000.
PSI has since appealed Justice Harnanan’s ruling. Attorney Timothy Jonas SC who represents DCEL, told this newspaper yesterday that there is no stay of the judge’s ruling, but said that the judge had given the defendant three months in which to fully vacate the land.
That period the lawyer noted, expired since January.
Following judgment in their favour DCEL has been publicly demanding that PSI end its continued occupation of the land as well as a series of alleged “threatening actions which seek to intimidate DCEL employees.”
A statement on Tuesday from the company—a subsidiary of Demerara Distillers Limited (DDL) sought to reiterate the court’s order to PSI to give up possession of the property.
DCEL says that despite the ruling PSI has continued its occupation of the land by keeping materials and equipment on the site; while adding that on several occasions, heavy-duty equipment was used to block DCEL access to the property.”
The claimant company says that on April 22nd, its employees made a report at the Providence Police Station, that an excavator, belonging to Pritipaul Singh Investments, was blocking a bridge to the property.
Later that day the police advised that they would visit Pritipaul Singh Investments with the court Order and would request the removal of the excavator. The excavator remained in place and a follow-up report was made to the Commander of Police Division 4B.
Again, on Saturday May 1st, 2021, PSI proprietor Pritipaul Singh was, they claimed approached on the property by DCEL security staff who advised that he was trespassing. His response was to indicate that the matter is in court.
On May 3rd, a marshal of the court is said to have removed the excavator but PSI’s occupation and obstruction continues.
More recently—on Tuesday, PSI was accused of upping the ante and behaving in an aggressive manner towards DCEL staff.
According to DCEL, the illegal occupation and continued obstruction by Pritipaul Singh Investments have delayed the commencement of extensive works for the development of DCEL’s waterfront facilities at Providence which are part of the company’s efforts to build its capacity and expand the services offered by the DDL Group of Companies.
In its statement of claim, DCEL contended that it is the lawful owner of the embattled Lot W front land of Plantation Providence comprising 1.22 acres.
According to court
documents seen by this newspaper, DCEL said that PSI surreptitiously moved onto the land and began clearing, filling and constructing on it without their knowledge or permission.
They claimant company said that it was only after a fire which cleared some of the dense overgrowth that it became aware of the defendant’s incursion on the land, at which point they initiated steps to assert their ownership.
PSI, however, denied the claims advanced by DCEL and contended through their pleadings that they had purchased the land in question from their predecessors in title as part of the transported property they acquired from them (Georgetown Seafoods Ltd), as described in the Transport.
PSI contended further, that even if the portion of the property was owned by DCEL, they knowingly failed to assert their right against the occupation and development by the defendant, to its own detriment.
According to PSI in court documents, DCEL would have acquiesced to the defendant’s activities in the property, which they (PSI) had argued had become subject to the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.
PSI substantially counterclaimed for an order conveying the disputed portion of land in their name.
In his ruling, Justice Harnanan said that there was cogent evidence presented by the land surveyor substantiating that the disputed land formed part of the claimant’s transported lands and therefore belonged to DCEL.
This particular issue the judge noted, was not contested by PSI.
The Court noted the defendant’s claim of an equity in the land based on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel; whereas the claimant alleged PSI to be a trespasser.
For context, the judge noted that the disputed portion of land, as a matter of fact, was mainly foreshore land with river frontage, while noting that the evidence before the court strongly suggested that in 2015 the area was unoccupied, low and marshy, overtaken by vegetation of various heights and prone to being inundated, whenever the river tide flows.
According to court documents, evidence led by DCEL through its Projects Manager revealed that portion/lot ‘P’ which is at the front of the disputed portion/lot W, is also occupied by agents of the claimant.
The court documents said that evidence led revealed that portion P is not staffed with managerial level employees of DCEL, on a regular basis and that portion ‘W’ is not ordinarily visible from the business operations of the claimant on portion P.
The claimant’s Projects Manager, Kenneth Ragnauth is said to have testified that the business operations take place in the bonds, which face the public road and which obstructs the view to the rear of the property preventing visibility of portion W. He also testified that the vegetation to the rear of portion ‘P’ did not allow for an unobstructed view of portion ‘W.’
The interest the defendant is claiming to have acquired in Lot ‘W’ is grounded in the doctrine of proprietary estoppel— an equitable doctrine that prevents someone from relying on certain facts or rights which are different to earlier ones – to the detriment of someone else.
Referencing a plethora of case law authorities, the judge said it was clear that the common thread running through the principle of acquiescence is ‘knowledge’. Whether the encouragement is active or passive, he said, the property owner must be imbued with knowledge that the party asserting an interest in the property is mistakenly acting to his detriment over the property and simply stands by without asserting his or her rights.
On this point the judge pointed out that a relevant question was therefore whether the evidence before the court established that the claimant company had knowledge of the works carried on over at lot W by the defendant company, and stood by and did nothing about it?
In answer, Justice Harnanan recalled the testimony of Ragnauth who maintained that it was only after a brush fire had caused damage to the claimant’s fence to the northern and western boundaries of portion P that he traversed there to assess the damage and arrange for repairs, and that it was then that he observed for the first time machinery, construction material and hardware placed on lot W where individuals were carrying on pile driving; following which the defendant was issued demand notices to cease its trespass.
The judge recalled that Chief Executive Officer of the defendant company, Pritipaul Singh himself, had admitted under cross-examination that when he started clearing the disputed land, he did not know whose it was and that he did not have permission from the claimant or anyone else.
He further admitted that the first time he heard from the claimant company was when Ragnauth told PSI that they were trespassing and they had to move out.
Having regard to the totality of the evidence, the judge said he found no evidence that DCEL knew of the development activities PSI had been carrying out over on portion W before July 2016; nor is there any evidence that the claimant ought to have known of those activities.
Justice Harnanan said that the defendant was not operating under the mistaken impression that the land at portion W formed part of its transported land which it purchased from Georgetown Seafoods Ltd.
The judge said that the defendant acted to its own detriment over developmental activities on portion W, based on no assurance, or acquiescence (whether active or passive) by the claimant.
In the circumstances, he said the court found that the defendant trespassed on the land, while adding that there exists no principle in law on which PSI can rely to retain its occupation of portion ‘W’.
“This Court also finds that the defendant has failed to demonstrate any beneficial interest in and to portion W, based in equity or otherwise, which estops the claimant from asserting its title over, or which entitles the defendant to any monetary compensation for developmental works carried on over portion W,” Justice Harnanan declared.
PSI is being represented by attorney Neil Boston SC.
