The High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana has denied the Attorney General, Anil Nandlall’s application for immediate possession of land, a case governed by the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes Act, Chapter 62:05 in Peter’s Hall East bank Demerara, related to the construction of the new Demerara Harbour Bridge, paving the way for an expedited trial focused on ensuring fair compensation and a just resolution for the landowners involved.
The ruling was issued under Justice Jacqueline Josiah-Graham, who has since ordered that the trial proceed with urgency to ensure a swift resolution. All parties involved have been directed to comply with case management orders designed to facilitate the timely determination of compensation. Additionally, the court has awarded costs of $150,000 to each defendant. The substantive matter is scheduled for further case management on September 19, 2024.
The case concerns Wilfred Branford, the Estate of Viriene Fredricks, represented by Vashti Fredricks and Pearl Layne, as well as Merlyn Thomas, Joan Stewart, and Malcolm Thomas, the named executor of William Ovid Thomas’s will. On the other side, the Attorney General’s team includes Counsel Ms. Motile, Ms. Ramdass, and Mr. Jaigobin, while the respondents are represented by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, Dr. Dexter Todd, and Mr. Smartt.
In its ruling, the Court underscored that granting immediate possession without addressing compensation disputes would undermine the constitutional protections afforded to landowners under Article 142 of the Constitution of Guyana. The Court stated, “Granting immediate possession without resolving compensation disputes between the parties undermines the constitutional protections afforded to landowners under Article 142. It would permit the taking of property without just compensation, violating both statutory and constitutional mandates.”
The Court emphasized the principle that while the State holds the authority to acquire land for public purposes, such power must be balanced by the requirement for fair compensation. The ruling highlighted that the term “subject to payment” reinforces that acquisition must be accompanied by fair and clear compensation. This ensures that property rights are protected, adhering to the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 142 and 39, which safeguard property rights as fundamental entitlements of citizenship.
The Court’s decision effectively pauses the government’s immediate possession plans until a fair compensation arrangement is reached with the landowners. The Court’s emphasis on fairness reflects its commitment to ensuring that property rights are respected and that compulsory land acquisitions do not infringe upon constitutional protections.
The expedited trial provides for resolving the compensation issues, aiming to balance the State’s needs with the rights of landowners, and uphold the integrity of property rights in accordance with Guyana’s constitutional framework.
