Derek Achong

Se­nior Re­porter

derek.achong@guardian.co.tt

A High Court Judge has sought to re­solve a le­gal dis­pute be­tween the Trinidad Ri­fle As­so­ci­a­tion and the Ch­aguara­mas De­vel­op­ment Au­thor­i­ty (CDA) over con­trol of a par­cel of land in Tuck­er Val­ley on which the for­mer’s shoot­ing range op­er­ates.

De­liv­er­ing a judg­ment ear­li­er this week, High Court Judge West­min James re­ject­ed the as­so­ci­a­tion’s claim to the land as well as the CDA’s coun­ter­claim in re­la­tion to the as­so­ci­a­tion.

The out­come, in which nei­ther par­ty es­sen­tial­ly won their claim, was based on the T&T De­fence Force (TTDF) hav­ing a valid and ex­ist­ing lease from the CDA for a 100-acre plot, part of which the shoot­ing range is on.

The as­so­ci­a­tion filed the case in 2020, al­leg­ing that it had ob­tained ti­tle to the land through ad­verse pos­ses­sion.

Un­der the le­gal prin­ci­ple, squat­ters can re­tain con­trol of a prop­er­ty if they have been in con­tin­u­ous pos­ses­sion for 16 or more years and the law­ful own­er fails to take ac­tion to evict them with­in the pe­ri­od.

The as­so­ci­a­tion con­tend­ed that its oc­cu­pa­tion be­gan in 1989 and was with­out the per­mis­sion of the TTDF and the CDA.

The as­so­ci­a­tion claimed that be­tween 1989 and 1991, it spent $2 mil­lion to de­vel­op the shoot­ing range.

It fur­ther claimed that in 2010, it up­grad­ed the fa­cil­i­ty at a cost of $270,000 and spent ap­prox­i­mate­ly $15,000 a month to main­tain it.

The CDA de­nied the as­so­ci­a­tion’s claims, as it claimed that the TTDF had been grant­ed per­mis­sion to use the land since the 1970s, and it (TTDF) grant­ed the as­so­ci­a­tion per­mis­sion to utilise a por­tion for the range.

In de­ter­min­ing the law­suit, Jus­tice James ruled that the as­so­ci­a­tion should have brought pro­ceed­ings against the TTDF as the ten­ant of the land and not the CDA as land­lord.

“It is well-es­tab­lished law that where land is sub­ject to a ten­an­cy, ad­verse pos­ses­sion against the free­hold own­er (the land­lord) does not be­gin to run un­til the lease or ten­an­cy has come to an end,” he said.

“Un­til that time, any ad­verse pos­ses­sion is deemed to run on­ly against the ten­ant, not the land­lord,” he added.

Not­ing that, dur­ing the pe­ri­od of oc­cu­pa­tion, se­nior TTDF of­fi­cials served in ex­ec­u­tive po­si­tions in the as­so­ci­a­tion, Jus­tice James found that its pos­ses­sion was not ad­verse to the CDA, as it was based on per­mis­sion from the TTDF.

“There have been no facts giv­en where this po­si­tion of con­sent was re­voked by the TTDF or that the TTDF was ex­clud­ed from the prop­er­ty,” he said.

As part of his judg­ment, Jus­tice James re­fused to rule that the as­so­ci­a­tion had a li­cence and in­ter­est to oc­cu­py the land based on its re­la­tion­ship with the TTDF.

His de­ci­sion on the is­sue was based on the TTDF not par­tic­i­pat­ing in the case as the ten­ant.

He al­so re­ject­ed the as­so­ci­a­tion’s claim that the CDA was seek­ing to tres­pass on the land by mov­ing to evict it.

“The par­ty who has the right to make that claim for a breach by the de­fen­dant would be the TTDF, not the claimant,” he said.

He al­so found that CDA could not make the tres­pass claim against the as­so­ci­a­tion.

“The Court can­not de­ter­mine that the Claimant’s oc­cu­pa­tion was en­tire­ly with­out le­gal ba­sis or au­thor­i­ty, as such a find­ing would re­quire a full con­sid­er­a­tion of the TTDF’s rights and per­mis­sions, an is­sue that can­not prop­er­ly be re­solved in these pro­ceed­ings with­out the TTDF as a par­ty,” he said.

Based on the out­come, both the as­so­ci­a­tion and the CDA were or­dered to cov­er their own le­gal costs.

The as­so­ci­a­tion was rep­re­sent­ed by Haresh Ram­nath, while Justin Phelps, SC, and Joshua Ham­let rep­re­sent­ed the CDA.