Gooding v Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Grenada
• Judge: Henry, J.
• Judgment Date: 24 May 2007
• Neutral Citation: GD 2007 HC 10
• Docket Number: GDAHCV 0122 of 2006
• Court: High Court (Grenada)
• Date: 24 May 2007

High Court

Henry, J.

GDAHCV 0122 of 2006

Gooding

and

Attorney General

Appearances:

Mr. Cajeton Hood for the claimant

Mr. Hugh Wildman, and with him Mr. A. Olowu, for the defendant

Real Property - Adverse possession — No evidence of continuous possession for the prescribed period — Issuance by Inland Revenue of notices in claimant's name was not a representation by government that claimant was the owner of the property

Henry, J.

1 By fixed date claim form filed on 9th March 2006, the claimant seeks the following relief:

1

A declaration that the Land Acquisition Act Cap 153 of the 1990 Revised Laws of Grenada (hereinafter “the Act”) is not a law which makes provision for the prompt payment of full compensation for the compulsory acquisition of property; 2. A declaration that the purported acquisition of the property pursuant to Gazette Notice dated the 15th day of February 2001 and all other notices relating thereto are not in accordance with the Act; 3. A declaration that the purported acquisition of the said property is unlawful and a contravention of the constitutional rights of the owner of the said property not to be deprived of his property without the prompt payment of full compensation therefore; 4. Alternatively, that the Court determine the compensation payable to the owner of the said property and order the prompt payment thereof; 5. All such further orders and consequential relief as to the Court may seem just; 6. Costs.

2 The allegations of the claimant are that he is the lawful owner of property located at Melville Street in the City of St. George containing 6720 sq.ft.; that by notice published in the Gazette of 15th February, 2001, the Government of Grenada purported to acquire the said property for a public purpose; that by notice dated 27th February, 2006, the Acquisition Officer demanded that he vacate the said property or be forcibly removed; that neither the said Acquisition Officer nor any other person on behalf of the Government has entered into negotiations with him nor has any tribunal been set up to determine the value of the said property. He therefore prays for the above relief.

3 In its defence, the defendant admits that the Government has acquired the premises at Melville Street but denies that the said acquisition was unlawful or that it contravenes any constitutional rights of the claimant. The Government does not deny the right of the owner to compensation once ownership documents are produced and confirmed, but alleges that the claimant is not the owner of the said property. The defendant avers that the Government is in the process of negotiating with the estate of Jimmy Lewis and that in fact, the claimant has no interest in the said property. The defendant contends that the Government is empowered to evict the claimant from the premises by virtue of its acquisition of the said property. The defendant therefore prays that the declarations sought by the claimant be refused and that costs be awarded against the claimant.

4 At trial each party called only one witness – Ferdinand Gooding on his own behalf and one Ronald Lewis, son of Jimmy Lewis, on behalf of the Government.

5 The evidence of Mr. Gooding is that he entered into possession of the land on 15th January 1986; that he built a workshop thereon and has been in receipt of rents from it; that no one, including Jimmy Lewis, has ever attempted to challenge his right of occupation; that in 2002, on the advice of his attorney, he swore and filed a Statutory Declaration with respect to the property; that in 2002 he received a Demand Note under section 40 of the Property Tax Act of 1997 from Inland Revenue Department and pursuant to the said notice he paid property tax on the property. On cross-examination the claimant, although admitting that he knew Jimmy Lewis, denied that before taking up occupation he knew Jimmy Lewis to be the owner of the property. He also denied that he was let into possession by one Carlyle Woodroffe, one of the named beneficiaries under Jimmy Lewis' will, or that he had any dealings with him in relation to the said property. It was put to him on cross-examination that he was a mere squatter on the property but he professed not to know the meaning of the word “squatting” or “squatter”. He admitted to knowing that there was a block-making factory on the premises before he took up possession, but stated that he knew it to be there in the early 1980's. He denied emphatically that Jimmy Lewis and his son Ronald Lewis were in occupation of the premises up to 1989.

6 The evidence of Ronald Lewis is that Jimmy Lewis, deceased, was his father and was the owner of the said premises. In support thereof he submitted a copy of an indenture dated 29th December 1972 between the Government of Grenada as vendor and Jimmy Lewis as purchaser. His further evidence is that he resided on the property and worked with his father in his restaurant/block-making industry from 1986 to 1989; that his father went to Trinidad in September 1989 and a few weeks later died there in late 1989; that he continued in occupation until 1990 when he left for Trinidad. The witness further stated that his father, before his death, made a will in which he bequeathed the said property to six persons, including one Carlyle Woodroffe and that probate of the said will was granted by the Supreme Court of Grenada to his sole executor, Herbert Squires. (Copies of both the will and the probate were admitted). He admitted that he was not one of the persons named in his father's will and that he owns no part of the said property. According to his evidence, he returned from Trinidad in 1995 and it was then, for the first time, that he saw the claimant in occupation of the premises. He stated that he confronted the claimant who told him to check with Carlyle Woodroffe, but that as far as he was aware, no action was ever taken on the matter. He strenuously denies that the claimant has been in occupation of the premises since 1986. He insists that the earliest that the claimant could have entered into possession was late 1990 after the witness left for Trinidad.

THE LAW

7 The relevant part of section 6 of the Constitution of Grenada provides as follows:

• “6. (1) No property of any description shall be compulsorily taken possession of, and no interest in or right over property of any description shall be compulsorily acquired, except where provision is made by a law applicable to...