The High Court has dismissed a claim by the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) over its removal from a building in Lethem which had served as the party’s regional headquarters for approximately five decades.
In a judgment delivered on Monday, the court found that the land and building belonged to the State and were vested in the Region Nine Regional Democratic Council (RDC), according to a statement yesterday from the Attorney General’s Chambers.
The PNCR was ordered to pay costs of $300,000 to Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC, the third-named defendant in the proceedings.
The action arose from the party’s removal from the premises in March 2023. The PNCR had filed proceedings against the Attorney General, contractor Dale Kennedy and the RDC.
It alleged that then Regional Executive Officer Karl Singh and Kennedy, accompanied by members of the Guyana Police Force, entered the building without permission, demolished sections of it, removed the party’s belongings and prevented its members from returning.
The party sought declarations that its constitutional rights had been violated, damages for trespass and conversion of its property, and an injunction preventing the defendants from re-entering the premises.
The defendants argued that the building was State property under the control of the RDC and that the PNCR had occupied it only as a licensee rather than as an owner or tenant. They maintained that the party remained there without the State’s permission after being served with notices to leave.
According to the Attorney General’s Chambers, the court found, after hearing witnesses for both sides, that the PNCR was unable to produce a lease, transport, title or any other document establishing ownership.
The party’s occupation of the premises, which began during the 1970s, was “best understood as permission granted by the State rather than a legal right to the property,” the statement said.
The court also found that the RDC gave the PNCR sufficient notice to leave, beginning in November 2021. Several notices were subsequently issued before a final deadline was given in January 2023.
The dispute erupted publicly in March 2023 when workers hired by Kennedy began dismantling the roof and sections of the building during the early morning.
At the time, the PNCR maintained that it had possessed the property for close to 50 years and that its ownership and occupancy had never previously been disputed.
Then Party General Secretary Dawn Hastings-Williams had described the operation as unlawful, while attorney Darren Wade maintained that the PNCR had legal title to the premises.
Singh, however, had told Stabroek News that the building was included in the RDC’s inventory and that the process of having the party vacate it had begun more than a year earlier.
He said notices had been sent to both the national and regional leadership of the PNCR and that he had personally visited the location to discuss the matter with party representatives.
Singh had also said that the RDC awarded a contract for remedial work to the roof and windows to facilitate the conversion of the building into a health centre.
The PNCR alleged that items removed from the office included Claims and Objections documents intended for submission to the Guyana Elections Commission, 11 barrels of clothing and electronic equipment.
Singh had told this newspaper that the items were secured by the contractor and that the party was informed that they could be collected.
In the civil proceedings, the High Court found that the PNCR’s permission to occupy the building had been lawfully withdrawn and, therefore, the entry onto and recovery of the premises did not constitute trespass.
The court also rejected the party’s claim that its belongings had been unlawfully converted. According to the statement, the items were inventoried and stored by the RDC and “remained available for collection.”
Claims that the party’s constitutional rights and protections under international human rights law had been breached were also rejected.
The court concluded that the authorities’ actions amounted to “lawful enforcement of [the State’s] property rights rather than discrimination or an unconstitutional taking,” the statement said.
The PNCR’s case was consequently dismissed in its entirety.
Wade represented the party, while Nandlall and State Counsel Pierre Squires appeared for the Attorney General.
Discussion