A Chaguanas farmer has succeeded in her lawsuit over an almost two-decade-long delay in renewing her lease for a parcel of land formerly held by now-defunct State sugar company Caroni (1975) Ltd.
Delivering a judgment late last week, High Court Judge Kevin Ramcharan partially upheld Bissundai Rampersad’s judicial review lawsuit against the office of the Commissioner of State Lands.
In determining the case, Justice Ramcharan ruled that Rampersad was the lawful tenant of the land and ordered State Lands Commissioner Bhanmati Seecharan to urgently process her application for renewal.
According to the evidence in the case, Rampersad entered into a five-year lease arrangement with the company for 1.25 acres of agricultural land in Felicity, Chaguanas, in March 1999. Before the lease was due to expire, Rampersad sought to renew the agreement, which fell under the Agricultural Small Holdings Tenure Ordinance.
Rampersad faced numerous delays before her attorney Richard Jaggasar made a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for an update on her application in 2020.
Jaggasar eventually filed the lawsuit against the commissioner and the chief executive officer (CEO) of the company in 2021 as he claimed the ordinance required the renewal to take place within three months.
“Simply put, if the State expects to renew a tenure agreement in three months then it should also be able to process an application for a tenure agreement in three months as well,” Jaggasar said.
In defence of the case, the commissioner’s office claimed it never received Rampersad’s renewal application, which was sent to the company before it (the commissioner’s office) was assigned responsibility for managing the leases.
The company’s CEO claimed Rampersad might be in breach of the agreement and was not entitled to renewal.
Justice Ramcharan rejected the defence by the commissioner’s office that Rampersad should have submitted a new application as the one provided to the company could not be located.
“The court notes, however, that had this position been expressed during the pre-action process, it may well have been that the claimant would have decided to take a practical approach and submit a new application to expedite the process,” he said.
“The court is of the view that this is litigation which could easily have been avoided if there had been proper communication between the parties during the pre-action process.”
Despite his findings, Justice Ramcharan ordered that Rampersad resubmit an application as it was the most practical course of action. He also instructed the commissioner’s office to seek the expeditious approval of the application as he noted that similar applications made in 2017 by other leaseholders were yet to receive Cabinet approval.
Justice Ramcharan also ruled that the company’s CEO was not a proper party to the claim as it (the company) should have been used instead.
However, he rejected the CEO’s claims over the renewal as he pointed out that the procedure was no longer under the company’s remit and the commissioner’s office recognised Rampersad as the proper tenant for the property.
In a press release issued following the outcome, Jaggasar claimed that the case would serve as a precedent for many other leaseholders facing similar delays.
“When Caroni (1975) Ltd closed its doors, each of its employees at the time was promised land tenures...Any attempts to renew land tenures were met with an undefined process of renewal, resulting in frequent delays and confusion,” Jaggasar said.
As part of his decision in the case, Justice Ramcharan ordered the commissioner’s office to pay Rampersad’s legal costs for the lawsuit.
Rampersad was ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by the company’s CEO.
