Government to pay land-owner after 21-year legal battle

By L.K. Hewlett
Editor – SKNVibes.com

Loris James

According to James, he was one of a few individuals who jointly bought 441 acres of sugar-estate land in the West Farm, Camps area in 1986, which was acquired by the then incumbent People’s Action Movement (PAM) administration in 1987. He claims he applied for his rightful compensation based on the open market price of the lands.

“The essential argument was centered around whether the government should pay a price based on the agricultural use of the land as it was prescribed in the Amended Law, or was it to pay open market price based on whatever use was best and what a willing seller and buyer would have accepted for the lands at the time of acquisition,” James outlined.

James has since made a claim for EC $6.9 million plus compound interest for said land, a sum he says will be shared between himself and the family members of deceased joint owners. The government at the time countered with an offer of EC $200,000 based on a pro rata share of a Global Sugar Land purchase price.

After so many years of legal back and forth, the appeal was heard in January 2008 and the Court of Appeals ruled in October that the government owed James compensation based on the open market price.

“The Attorney General and I have come to a meeting of the eyes on a compromise for this case and it’s my hope that we can soon execute it formally. In the absence of it, I will have to look at what the Court of Appeal ordered which was the fair and open market price for the property,” James said.

He also calculated that based on the type of development that has taken place in the area where the land is located and his initial plans for its use, the property is valued at well over EC $100 million. ~~Adz:Right~~

He also informed that the government had secured leases for the some of the land on which a Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine building and other facilities had been constructed, and had also constructed government homes on some of the land.

“Having leased and built on at least 15% of the property, the government earned upwards of $10 million, which should have gone to the Treasury, so I don’t see why it is such a problem to pay me $6.9 million. I am even willing to forego some of the interest in order that they can come up with the finances.

I just want this resolved and if they do not pay, then I have other courses of action that I can and will take in order to get what rightfully belongs to me and the other individuals who have a stake in this claim.”

The appeal was heard in January 2008 before His Lordship the Hon. Sir Brian Alleyne, SC, Chief Justice [Ag.], His Lordship the Hon. Dennis Barrow, SC, Justice of Appeal and His Lordship Hon. Errol Thomas, Justice of Appeal [Ag.] in the presence of Anthony E. Gonsalves for the appellant [James] and Arudranauth Gossai for the respondent [Government]. According to an official Court certificate.

“The orders sought by the appellant, namely the decision of the learned trial judge is set aside and section 19(1) of the Land Acquisiton Ordinance, as amended by section 13 of the Land Acquisiton Ordinance (Amendment ) Act of 1969 is in conflict with section 8 of the Constitution and paragraph 10 (1) (c) of Schedule 2 to the Constitution Order and therefore void.

“The costs order made in the court is set aside and the appellant is awarded his costs in the court.”James said that the case would go into the law books for future law practitioners and any interested persons to scrutinize as it was a landmark case that many could draw from.

“People out there need to thoroughly investigate who they are buying or leasing land from, even if it’s a government agency, so they do not have to go through a similar ordeal.

Don’t be afraid to stand up for your rights as they are the fundamentals of our democratic society. The government cannot just decide to take your land or property and not properly compensate you for it in a timely manner.

“I have no personal issues with the government and I am friends with quite a few ministers and former ministers. This was a matter of principle based on business not friendship. Don’t let parliamentarians scare you out of what is legally yours. The Parliament may be Sovereign but the Constitution is Supreme.”