Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
The Privy Council has resolved a long-standing property dispute between a dozen siblings over one of them building a house on a portion of land their father left them.
Last week, five Law Lords of the United Kingdom-based appellate court delivered their ruling on an appeal brought by 11 siblings against their sister Vashti Ramlal, her husband Omar and their son Ravi.
The lawsuit related to a 4.75-acre parcel of mainly swampy, undeveloped land owned by their father, Raghoonanan Gookol, who died in July 2006.
In December 1995, Gookol made a will in which he left his 12 children an equal share in the land and named his daughter Chandra as sole executrix.
While his will was being probated, a judge ruled that Ramlal was entitled to her one-twelfth share of the land based on a promise her father made when she got married in late 1982.
Her siblings filed the lawsuit in November 2016 as they claimed that a house being constructed by her son on the site of a wooden house built by Gookol infringed on their share of the land.
A High Court Judge dismissed their claim for trespass and ruled that Ramlal was entitled to the land.
The Court of Appeal delivered a majority ruling in which two judges ruled that the judge’s finding on Vashti’s claim to land was wrong, as such was inconsistent with the terms of the will.
However, they found that the trespass claim was rightly dismissed as the actions taken by Ramlal and her family were permitted by Gookol and Chandra.
They ordered the demolition of the house.
In deciding the final appeal, Lord Michael Briggs ruled that the majority of the Appeal Court was wrong to have interfered with the judge’s finding of fact in relation to Ramlal’s claim.
Noting that the Appeal Court was wrong to criticise the judge’s analysis of the evidence including a series of emails.
“But none of them, singly or together, come near to showing that the Judge’s assessment of the facts was clearly wrong,” he said.
He also found that the siblings did not have an equitable claim to the land.
Lord Briggs also found that the appeal panel was wrong to have ordered the demolition of the house, which cost approximately $400,000 to build.
He noted that while the case was being decided, the siblings agreed that the land should be surveyed and subdivided, with Ramlal’s portion falling on the area where her son constructed the house.
“It remains a completely unexplained and, on the face of it, irrational exercise of the equitable discretion to grant injunctive relief,” he said.
He agreed that the proposal would help resolve the case, but noted that such would require planning permission.
He also agreed that the case required mediation as suggested by Appellate Judge Peter Rajkumar, who provided the dissenting judgment in the local appeal.
Ramlal and her family were represented by Anand Ramlogan, Daniel Goldblatt, and Jared Jagroo of Freedom Law Chambers.
Her siblings were represented by Anand Beharrylal KC and Kandace Bharath-Nahous.
