JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Sunday, July 20, 2025

Man gets court hearing to evict sister-in-law from land

by

1153 days ago
20220523

Derek Achong

A 63-year-old man from cen­tral Trinidad has re­ceived a hear­ing of his ap­pli­ca­tion to evict his sis­ter-in-law from a par­cel of leased land af­ter threat­en­ing to sue the Reg­is­trar of the Ch­agua­nas Mag­is­trate’s Court over a de­lay in fil­ing it. 

Last Tues­day, Ramdin Boney, through his at­tor­ney Richard Jag­gasar, made the le­gal threat in a pre-ac­tion pro­to­col let­ter sent to the Ju­di­cia­ry of­fi­cial.

Three days lat­er, Jag­gasar re­ceived no­ti­fi­ca­tion from the of­fi­cial stat­ing that the ap­pli­ca­tion was list­ed for hear­ing to­day.

The no­ti­fi­ca­tion means Boney will now have to re­con­sid­er his le­gal op­tions and de­cide whether to still pur­sue the pro­posed case, al­though such a course is un­like­ly. 

In the let­ter, ob­tained by Guardian Me­dia last week, Jag­gasar said the par­cel of land in Fe­lic­i­ty, Ch­agua­nas, was ini­tial­ly leased to Boney’s fa­ther-in-law Emanuel Ramkissoon. 

Af­ter Boney mar­ried Ramkissoon’s daugh­ter Ram­ra­ji in 1990, he (Ramkissoon) ap­plied to add the cou­ple to the lease. 

He claimed that af­ter Ramkissoon passed away, his client and his wife con­tin­ued to pay the $4 an­nu­al rental for the 10,000 square foot par­cel of land un­der the ten­an­cy agree­ment. 

He claimed that his client in­her­it­ed the lease af­ter his wife passed away in De­cem­ber 2020. 

In Feb­ru­ary, Boney sought to evict his sis­ter-in-law, who was squat­ting on the land, by mak­ing an ap­pli­ca­tion un­der the Sum­ma­ry Eject­ment Or­di­nance. 

Boney and Jag­gasar sought to fol­low up on the ap­pli­ca­tion but on­ly re­ceived re­spons­es con­firm­ing re­ceipt of their cor­re­spon­dence. 

Jag­gasar was then con­tact­ed by an em­ploy­ee at the court who claimed the ap­pli­ca­tion had to be filed in the High Court. 

In the let­ter, Jag­gasar point­ed out that ap­pli­ca­tions un­der the or­di­nance had to be dealt with by a sum­ma­ry court. He claimed the de­lay in the fil­ing led to his sis­ter-in-law re­main­ing on the prop­er­ty. 

“This has caused him to lose in­come which he ought to be able to re­ceive from the prop­er­ty,” Jag­gasar said. 

Jag­gasar con­tend­ed that Boney’s con­sti­tu­tion­al rights to pro­tec­tion of the law and equal­i­ty be­fore the law were breached by the in­or­di­nate de­lay.

“The Ju­di­cia­ry’s agents have failed/ne­glect­ed/ re­fused to process an ap­pli­ca­tion for eject­ment un­der the sum­ma­ry eject­ment or­di­nance with­out rea­son­able cause or due process,” he said. 

Through the pro­posed law­suit, Boney was seek­ing a se­ries of de­c­la­ra­tions over the de­lay and an or­der com­pelling the reg­is­trar to im­me­di­ate­ly file and process the ap­pli­ca­tion.
 

CLICK FOR MORE NEWS


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored

iiq_pixel