Ten years after he was evicted from land he used for rice farming, businessman Keshwar Ramlall was awarded a $7.5 million judgement, against the government, for compensation and losses he suffered.
Justice Jainarayan Singh Jr ruled recently in the High Court that there was a breach of a legitimate expectation with respect to a lease for the land, and as a result, Ramlall should be compensated.
In 1993, Ramlall moved back to Guyana from the US, and following discussions with then president Dr. Cheddi Jagan, agriculture minister Reepu Daman Persaud and commissioner of lands, Kumar Datadin, he was granted permission to occupy 91 acres of land at Yakasuri, Black Bush Polder. He was informed that the lease would be granted in 90 days.
Assuming that he would receive the lease Ramlall spent US$147,000 on equipment to clear the land and had dams constructed, in addition to major drainage and irrigation work carried out. Ramlall subsequently began planting rice in 1994, but he was still to receive the lease for the land.
After constant enquiries about the lease and promises that it would be forthcoming Ramlall received a notice to quit in May 1995. Datadin had signed it. Ramlall said in court that he was shocked by the notice and sought advice on what to do. He said he spoke with government officials and was informed that a PPP councillor was in possession of the land and the lease.
Ramlall said he made several representations after learning this but there was no change in the decision to lease the land that he was still occupying; in 1998, he was physically evicted from the land. He said the PPP councillor had passed away by that time but the lease was transferred to his sons.
He filed a constitutional motion in February 2002 in the High Court declaring that his fundamental rights under the constitution had been breached; his eviction was unconstitutional, null and void, and that his dispossession of the land was in bad faith. Ramlall argued that it contravened Articles 142 and 149 of the constitution and he sought an order for an award of compensation.
Further, he said that there was a breach of a legitimate expectation that the lease would have been given to him. Ramlall also tendered receipts for the sale of the rice he harvested.
Government did not lead a defence in the case but opted to make written submissions through Attorney-at-Law Rajendra Rajkumar who contended that Ramlall only reaped two crops between 1994 and 1998 while he had a provisional lease. The lawyer said that when Ramlall was evicted he sold his machinery and did not suffer any losses. He said the businessman made profits from his rice and that he also sold the machinery and received US$30,000.
The lawyer argued that there had been no breach of either Article 142 or 149 of the constitution given that Ramlall had no legal possession of the land, adding that even if the possession was to be accepted the notice to quit in 1995 terminated this. He stated that thereafter, Ramlall was trespassing on the land. On the question of the allocation of the lease to the PPP councillor, the lawyer said, there could be no allegation of discrimination. He also pointed to the limitation act, which speaks to the period of time a person can approach the court, stating that it applied in this case and referred to Ramlall’s action as, “an abuse of the process”.
Mursuline Bacchus, attorney for Ramlall submitted that no period of limitation could be applied in a constitutional motion and therefore, the limitation act had no application in the matter. Justice Singh upheld this point in his ruling stating that this had been held in previous cases.
Justice Singh in his judgment pointed out that Ramlall did not have a fanciful or forlorn expectation with respect to the lease since he was given permission to occupy the land and he invested capital and later produced rice. He found that Ramlall was entitled to compensation for the breach of a legitimate expectation.
