Trinidad Rifle Association loses land claim in Chaguaramas

A high court judge has dismissed a claim by the Trinidad Rifle Association (TRA) seeking ownership of land in Tucker Valley, Chaguaramas, through adverse possession.

Justice Westmin James also dismissed a counterclaim filed by the Chaguaramas Development Authority (CDA) on the basis that the TRA’s occupation of the land was based on permission granted to it by the TT Defence Force (TTDF), the CDA’s tenant.

The TRA had argued it should be granted legal ownership of the rifle range area it occupied, claiming long-term use.

However, the court found that the TTDF, a tenant of the CDA, had permitted the TRA’s use of the site.

In effect, the judge’s ruling was that since the TTDF leased the land from the CDA, any claim of adverse possession would have to be made against the TTDF, not the CDA.

James ruled that the TRA's presence on the land was at all times with consent, including documented co-operation with the TTDF and formal requests made to the CDA for leases and support services.

“At no point in the pleadings, nor in the evidence led at trial, has the defendant indicated that the TTDF revoked its permission for the claimant to occupy or use the premises.

He added, “It is a well-established principle of landlord and tenant law that, where a tenant has been granted exclusive possession of premises, the tenant is entitled to exercise all rights of occupation, including permitting third parties such as licensees to enter and use the premises.”

James said the landlord had no right to interfere with the tenant’s use or enjoyment of the property so long as the tenancy remained in force and there was no breach of covenant.

“Any act by the landlord to prevent the tenant’s licensee from accessing the premises, absent lawful justification, would amount to a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment and may also constitute derogation from grant.

“Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence that the tenant’s permission to the licensee had been revoked or that the licensee’s presence constituted a breach, the landlord had no authority to exclude the claimant from the premises.”

James said any claim of a breach would have to be made by the TTDF, not the TRA.

“In the circumstances, it is clear that the claimant had lawful authority to be present on the property. The extent of that right cannot be determined in these proceedings, as the TTDF is not a party to these proceedings.”

He advised that any action for private nuisance must be brought by the party with a proprietary interest in the land.

“The interest of the claimant in the land, if any, cannot be ascertained without the TTDF being a party to the proceedings, and so the claimant does not have standing at this point without such a determination.”

The judge also rejected the TRA’s alternate argument that it held a licence coupled with an interest, stating that the TRA failed to prove any such agreement or induced expectation by the CDA.

“The claimant has alleged that its occupation was without the defendant’s consent and therefore adverse.

“If the occupation was truly adverse and without permission, it could not simultaneously have been the product of a licence or any form of permission giving rise to estoppel.

“Conversely, if there was a licence or some form of permission coupled with an interest, then the occupation could not have been adverse.”

The TRA filed its claim against the CDA in March 2021, seeking declarations that it was entitled to possession of the lands at Tucker Valley. The TRA said it invested some $2 million between 1989 and 1991 to develop its range and has expended $15,000 in monthly maintenance fees, but the CDA never objected to its use of the land.

However, the CDA, in its defence, denied that the TRA ever had exclusive control or continuous possession of the land.

Instead, the CDA maintained that the land was always under the lawful possession of the TTDF, which had been in control of the areas since the 1960s, through a lease and that the TRA was allowed to use part of it with permission, not ownership. The CDA argued that the TRA had asked for a lease which showed it acknowledged the CDA’s ownership of the lands. The evidence included decades of letters and documents between the CDA, the TTDF, and the TRA, showing ongoing negotiations, rent agreements, and use of the range.

In dismissing the TRA’s claim and the CDA’s counterclaim, the judge made no orders for costs.

“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.”

Haresh Ramnath represented the TRA while Justin Phelps, SC, and Joshua Hamlet represented the CDA.