President’s revocation of lease to Red House … Attorney raises arguments over order to prevent eviction

Jun 21, 2017 News, http://www.kaieteurnewsonline....to-prevent-eviction/

Legal arguments are continuing at the High Court over the acquisition of a lease by members of the former Government to the State-owned Red House.

The Red House became a source of contention last December when President David Granger revoked the 99-year lease to the property issued under the PPP/C Administration.

The lease was granted by the PPP/C Government to the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre Incorporated (CJRCI), a company formed by the members of the same administration.

The President’s decision to revoke the lease was premised on information obtained by the current government which essentially outlined that on March 30, 2012 the Red House lease agreement was initiated without the approval of either the President of the day or the National Trust of Guyana, in contravention of Section 10 of the Lands Department Act Chapter 59:01.

Members of the PPP/C subsequently moved to the court to challenge the revocation.

As the preliminary stage of the legal proceedings ensued over the occupation of the State owned property, the party sought an Order by the Court to prevent the eviction of tenants from the Red House.

On Monday, Attorney- at- Law, Anil Nandlall, in his representation of CJRCI made another request for the Court grant the Conservatory Order which will prevent the eviction of the tenants until the hearing and determination of the matter.

In his legal submission, Nandlall noted that, “The legal issue which fails to be addressed at this juncture is whether or not the Conservatory Order, prayed for herein, should be granted until the hearing and determination of the substantive matter.”

The Attorney noted that the Court extracted an undertaking from the Attorney-General (AG), the effect of which was to conserve the status quo.
“That Consent Order is still in force.”

However, while the order is still in force, the Attorney noted a constitutional action by way of a Writ of Summons alleges breaches of Articles 40 and 142 of the Constitution of Guyana and claims, inter alia, damages for breaches of those constitutional provisions and two conservatory orders.

“Article 142 of the Constitution, of course, protects against compulsory acquisition of property without compensation. This protection is guaranteed under the Constitution as a fundamental right and freedom.”

He said, “It is in those circumstances that the applicant approached this Court seeking its protection on the ground that the threatened revocation of its leasehold interest amounts to a deprivation of its property without proper compensation.

“It is trite law that the applicant’s leasehold interest would be property as contemplated by Article 142. Article 142 (1) reads 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 by or under the authority of any written law.”

On a previous occasion, the Attorney General (AG) Basil Williams filed submissions in the matter before Chief Justice (Ag) Roxane George.

Among the arguments outlined by Williams was that the lease was incorrectly drafted and is in effect invalid and ineffectual in law.

He outlined Sections 13 (1) (2) and (3) of the Deeds Registry Act, Chapter 5:01 relating to the purported lease.

The Act stipulates that no lease of immovable property for a term of (21 one or more years shall be good and valuable in law or pleadable by the Court of Justice in Guyana unless it is passed and executed before the Court in like manner as a transport filed as of a record in the Registry.

“The respondent submits that the applicant failed to produce any evidence that the purported lease was ever executed in the manner prescribed by the sections outlined in the Deed Registry Act. The matter, as such, cannot be pleadable by the Court.”

Additionally, given that the property is one of National Trust, the AG also contends that under the National Trust Act, permission must be granted by the subject Minister before the lease could be properly executed.

He submitted that the Minister of Education, Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine, said that no approval was ever given by any Minister of Education or himself to lease the area known as Red House in the last 17 years.

“It is respectfully submitted that the said area known as Red House could not have been rented by the Guyana Land & Surveys Commission (GLSC).

The purported lease is therefore a nullity and the CJRCI was at all material times a trespasser, thus rendering the Court without Jurisdiction to proceed to hear the matter.

The fight over an old wood ants wooden house. As I said before that place is a fire trap in waiting.

Gagraj once went to a building in the Rupunini and order the owner to vacate promptly.  He was in dispute with the government over ownership of the building.  The PPP brazenly tried to appropriate this building. Worse, they filled it up with their political people and put them on the nation's payroll. Instead of backing up bundle and just putting this theft right they are like the wrong and strong thief trying to hold on to property that is clearly not theirs.