Businessman wins Sangre Grande land dispute on appeal

A businessman has secured legal ownership of two lots of land in Sangre Grande after the Court of Appeal overturned a High Court ruling that had previously ordered him to vacate the property.

In a judgment on May 20, Justices of Appeal Mira Dean-Armorer, Malcolm Holdip and Carla Brown-Antoine ruled that Keith Quamina and his company, Woods Enterprise Holdings Ltd, had established adverse possession of the land over a period exceeding 16 years, entitling them to ownership.

The disputed land, located at LP 919 Eastern Main Road, was at the centre of a long-standing legal battle with Norbert Hernandez, who purchased the property in 2003 from Monte Cristo Estates Ltd. Hernandez claimed Quamina had unlawfully occupied the land, despite requests and police interventions to remove him.

The trial judge in the High Court had accepted Hernandez’s claim for possession and dismissed Quamina’s counterclaim. However, the appeal court found the judge was “plainly wrong” in several key findings, particularly in concluding that Quamina’s occupation began no earlier than 2003.

“Having heard the submissions of the parties, it was our view that the trial judge made a substantial error in assessing the evidence and was plainly wrong in dismissing the appellants’ claim. The appellants have proven on a balance of probabilities that they were in adverse possession of the disputed lands for more than 16 years,” Brown-Antoine, who wrote the decision, ruled.

According to evidence, Quamina had been in exclusive possession of the land from as early as 1993, after being invited by the now-defunct Friendly Society to carry out repairs and take over the property. By 1995, the Friendly Society became defunct, and he took complete possession of the lands. He also paid land and building taxes from 1996 to 2004.

In 1997, the registrar of the Friendly Societies accepted his offer to purchase the building. He expanded operations on the land, including constructing buildings and running multiple businesses, including a funeral home and car rental service. Quamina contended that his long, exclusive and undisturbed possession of the land extinguished Hernandez’s title rights.

In rejecting the lower court’s conclusion, the Appeal Court found that Quamina's possession was continuous, exclusive and without the permission of the legal owner, meeting the requirements for adverse possession under the Real Property Limitation Act.

The court also dismissed Hernandez’s claim that he had taken physical possession of the land after its purchase, citing a lack of supporting evidence.

While the appellate judges did not accept Quamina’s alternative argument of proprietary estoppel, ruling that Hernandez’s objections from 2004 onward disproved acquiescence, they nonetheless concluded that Quamina had proven his right to ownership through adverse possession.

“Taking into consideration all the evidence, including the contemporaneous documents, leads to the conclusion that it was more probable than not that the appellants were in sole occupation of the disputed lands before 10 June, 1997… And therefore, the respondent never took actual possession of the lands.”

On Quamina’s estoppel argument, the Appeal Court held, “the learned trial judge was not plainly wrong to conclude that Mr Hernandez’s pre-litigation correspondence and actions. were sufficient to dispel any such acquiescence or estoppel. This ground of appeal, therefore, fails.”

The court ordered that Quamina be granted fee simple title to the two lots and instructed Hernandez to execute a deed transferring the property within seven days, or else the Registrar of the Supreme Court would do so. Hernandez was also ordered to pay $28,000 in legal costs related to the original claim, along with two-thirds of the costs for the appeal.

Quamina and Woods Enterprise Ltd were represented by Yaseen Ahmed and Tara Lutchman. Marsha King represented Hernandez.