Demerara Contractors and Engineers Limited (DCEL)—a subsidiary of Demerara Distillers Limited (DDL)—is not the only Company on whose land Pritipaul Singh Investment (PSI) had been trespassing.
In fact, as was found to be in DCEL’s complaint against PSI in October last year, the High Court in a subsequent ruling had also declared PSI to be trespassing on land belonging to Sterling Products Limited (SPL).
As he had done in the case filed by DCEL— Proprietor of PSI—Pritipaul Singh—also sought to mount the claim of proprietary estoppel against SPL, in a bid to hold on to another piece of prime waterfront Providence land.
In her ruling of December 2nd of last year, however, Justice Jo-Ann Barlow found PSI’s claim to proprietary estoppel to have been without merit.
Proprietary estoppel is 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.
As Justice Nareshwar Harnanan had found in the claim brought by DCEL, Justice Barlow also found that Sterling Products Limited had no knowledge that PSI had entered on its land and was doing constructions.
To successfully ground a claim in proprietary estoppel—the defendant (in this case PSI)—would have had to have shown that the Claimant (SPL)—knew of PSI’s presence and development of the land and had done nothing to assert its (SPL’s) right.
Justice Barlow’s judgment, however, noted that SPL was unaware that PSI had entered onto its land.
“The evidence which this Court believed to be true is that the defendants, without any knowledge on the part of the claimant, entered unto the Claimant’s property and commenced work thereon,” the judge said.
The judge further observed that it was not until after it had come to the Claimant’s attention that activity was taking place within the boundaries of its property, that it confronted agents of the Defendants.
The Court in these separate challenges brought against PSI, had found that the dense vegetation surrounding their respective plots had obscured vision and caused both DCEL and SPL from being aware that the Defendant was trespassing.
As it had done when approached by DCEL, however, PSI also refused to acknowledge that it was on SPL’s land.
Declaring PSI to have had no legal rights/claims to the property, Justice Barlow said that there was no evidence that SPL sat by and encouraged the Defendant to act as it did.
Justice Barlow said she had also found that the steps taken by SPL to ascertain what was taking place within the boundaries of its property was prudent and done in a timely manner.
Against this background the judge said that SPL had satisfied the Court that it did not stand idly by and allow PSI to develop its land and then seek to benefit from it.
The judge said that in seeking to rely on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, a defendant must also satisfy the court on a balance of probabilities that it laboured under the belief that it had some interest in the property to warrant expenses invested.
“A party will not be able to rely on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel if that party expends money on land which it knows it has no interest in or is not likely to acquire sometime in the future an interest in the property,” the judge noted.
From evidence presented in both matters, Singh had himself admitted that the lands did not belong to his Company.
Justice Barlow said that the SPL had proved on a balance of probabilities that it was entitled to possession of its property and she so ordered; along with nominal damages of $1,000,000 to be borne by PSI for trespass.
PSI had entered on the property in 2015 and had continued to have its materials and structure on the land, and incursion which the judge noted continued even after SPL asserted its rights to PSI that it was trespassing.
Like it has done against DCEL, PSI has also appealed the SPL judgment.
On Friday—June 4th—the Guyana Court of Appeal will rule on whether or not it will grant a stay of the High Court judgment being sought by PSI. There has been no stay in its challenge against DCEL either.
The embattled lands for which PSI is fighting SPL for ownership are plots F and F1 and Lot E of Plantation Providence; and Lot W belonging to DCEL.
SPL was represented by attorney-at-law Nikhil Ramkarran, while PSI was represented by Neil Boston SC and Savion David-Long.
DCEL, meanwhile, was represented by Senior Counsel Timothy Jonas.
In his judgment of October, 2020 Justice Harnanan had found that PSI had no legal rights/claims to the land belonging to DCEL and ordered the seafood processing company to vacate no later than January of this year.
PSI is yet to comply with the court-order.
Justice Harnanan found that PSI was not operating under the mistaken impression that Lot W formed part of its transported land which it purchased from Georgetown Seafoods Ltd; while further noting that it acted to its own detriment over developmental activities based on no assurance, or acquiescence (whether active or passive) by DCEL.
The judge had said he found no evidence that DCEL knew of the development activities PSI had been carrying out on the land before July 2016; nor is there any evidence that the claimant ought to have known of those activities.
In his finding that PSI had trespassed on the land, the judge added that there exists no principle in law on which PSI can rely to retain its occupation of the property.
“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 had declared.
The judge had ordered PSI 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.
