STATE MADE TO PAY TWICE – Imbert blames Tobago land dispute outcome on homeowner's father's death

Minister of Finance Colm Imbert has responded to media reports that a Tobago homeowner was successful in litigation against the State over the acquisition of land, noting that several key facts from the Judgment were omitted from publications.

He added that the outcome meant "the State is now required to pay twice for land acquired and paid for over 25 years ago."

In a statement on Monday, Imbert referred to the case of Wolwin Lovell where a dispute for the compensation for the compulsory acquisition of property needed for a new Airport Terminal Building in Tobago arose.

In an interview with a Tobago reporter earlier this month Wolwin Lovell said he was victorious in the claim and said the Prime Minister and Imbert would have to be accountable for their actions.

In Monday's statement, Imbert said captions which claimed the State lost the case were inaccurate and concerning.

Lovell, who was the claimant, initiated legal action against the State by challenging the compulsory acquisition of a 630.05 square metre parcel of land at Lot No 1, Crompstain Trace, Crown Point, Tobago.

He claimed that his right to enjoy his property under section 4(a) of the Constitution was breached along with his rights to equality before the law and equality of treatment by a public authority as guaranteed by sections 4(b) and 4(d) respectively. He asked for $3.3 million in compensation.

It was claimed that Lovell received the property from his father Gaston Lovell on July, 17, 1995.

The land was part of a wider portion of land intended to be part of the ANR Robinson International Airport Project.

The State claimed it acquired the property under the publication of the Section 5 Legal Notice under the Land Acquisition Act on March, 7, 1996.

"Despite the said acquisition by the State, the claimant has lived on those lands rent free from then to now."

A claim for compensation was entered by RoPam Estate Agency on July, 8, 1996 on behalf of Gaston Lovell and his son for the land, the State's defence said.

It also said the elder Lovell was fully compensated for the property as he claimed to be acting on behalf of his son. The State claimed Gaston Lovel even submitted a valuation report for the property that belonged to Wolwin Lovell.

The younger Lovell, however, denied that his father ever acted as his agent submitting evidence that, "Gaston Lovell was never at any time my “Agent” in any dealings with the State for negotiations for compensation for land, nor was I ever his “Agent” for said purpose."

Imbert's statement opined: "The clear effect of the claimant’s denial was that his father improperly made a claim for compensation in respect of the Claimant’s property, and that his father, wrongfully or fraudulently, received and retained compensation from the State in respect of the property of his son."

The State could not challenge Wolwin's denial of his father receiving compensation on his behalf as the elder Lovell died by the time the proceedings were filed.

"In those circumstances, the State had no alternative but to concede that Mr Wolwin Lovell was entitled to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the subject property."

Imbert's statement sought to make clear that "the State never had any objection to compensation for the buildings constructed by Wolwin Lovell on the land, and so, the dispute was limited to compensation for the land on which those buildings are situated."

In her oral decision on March, 29, Justice Jacqueline Wilson accepted the State’s concession and held that the Claimant was entitled to compensation in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act.

She noted however that
there was no violation of Lovell's rights to equality before the law and the protection of the law or the right to equality of treatment by a public authority under sections 4 (b) and 4(d) of the Constitution.

She also held that there was no legitimate expectation which was breached by the State.

In her ruling she also referred to the fact that the State authorities acted on the genuine misunderstanding or belief that Lovell’s father, who represented that he acted on Wolwin Lovell’s behalf, had the authority to claim and receive compensation on behalf of him.

As a result of these developments the court limited it's order to declaration of Lovell's right under section 4(a) and a concomitant entitlement to compensation.

Imbert's statement added, "Because Mr Wolwin Lovell’s father was deceased and therefore unavailable to attend court to testify, the State is now required to pay twice for land acquired and paid for over 25 years ago."

The lands in question remain State lands since it's acquisition in March, 1996 as no orders were made voiding the State’s acquisition.

The release concluded that since compensation was ordered, Lovell has no reason to continue occupying the land and is required to deliver it to the State.