High Court dismisses Mocha squatters’ case, rejects claim for over $200M in damages

…Opposition MP’s evidence rejected; claimants ordered to pay AG, CH&PA, GuySuCo $2M in costs

Chief Justice Roxane George, SC, on Friday dismissed claims brought by squatters who had taken up residence at Cane View/Mocha, East Bank Demerara against the Government following the demolition of their homes in January 2023. Represented by attorneys Mark Gordon, Shenika Simpson, Roxane Allen and Lucretia George, the displaced squatters had sought more than $200 million in damages, declarations of ownership of parcels of land, and compensation for alleged breaches of constitutional rights.
In a virtual handing down of her decision on Friday, Justice George ruled that the applicants had failed to substantiate their claims for prescriptive titles, property damage, and constitutional violations; and she awarded costs against the applicants in the total sum of $1 million, payable by June 30, 2025.

Failed claims
The applicants’ primary contention was that they had acquired prescriptive titles to Lots 11 and 16 of Cane View through long-term occupation; but the Chief Justice found that the evidence they presented was insufficient, and was lacking in key details.
“Neither Ms. Allen, nor Mr. Gordon, nor any of the other applicants have provided a description of their respective lots, such as to reveal their dimensions and exact location,” Justice George has ruled.
The court also noted that, despite assertions of long-term residency, neither Gordon nor Allen had produced definitive survey data, maps, or photographs that clearly identified the specific parcels they claimed to own.
Further, in highlighting inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the applicants, Justice George observed that “the photos produced by Ms. Allen do not clearly identify exactly which of the structures was hers.” And she added that the photographs of the fence provided by Mr. Gordon “cast doubt on whether the evidence is credible.”

Speculative
The applicants had sought more than $200 million in compensation for damage to property and personal losses. Gordon’s claim had amounted to $189,637,031, while Allen had sought $25 million for the land and $30 million for her home. However, the court found these figures to be speculative and unsupported by credible evidence.
“There is no evidence he (valuator) ever observed anything about which he reported,” Justice George noted in reference to valuation reports relied upon by the applicants; which, without independent verification, were based solely on their oral accounts.
Allen’s claims for lost income from farming, a sum in excess of $12.9 million, were dismissed because of the absence of concrete evidence. The court found that reports by the applicants’ experts were vague, and failed to establish the basis for the sums claimed.

“The report is based on hearsay,” the Chief Justice remarked about one valuation report, which she emphasized is lacking in specifics about crop yield or size of land being cultivated.
During the trial, Opposition Member of Parliament, Nima N. Flue-Bess testified also but this evidence was also rejected by the court.

Constitutional breach rejected
The applicants had argued that their constitutional rights to property and protection against cruel and inhumane treatment had been violated by the demolition of their homes; but the court dismissed those claims as unfounded.
“Having considered the evidence in totality, the claims to breaches of the constitution are found to be unformal,” Justice George ruled.
Further, she emphasized that the matter is essentially a private law dispute over property damage, rather than a constitutional matter.
The applicants had named the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GuySuCo) as a respondent, but the court found no basis for this.
“The submissions in relation to GuySuCo are confusing, to say the least,” Justice George stated, as she questioned why the entity was included when no reliefs were sought against it.
In dismissing in their entirety the claims made against GuySuCo, the court noted that that company had ceased being titleholder of the land following a 2017 vesting order.

Dispute
The dispute goes back to January 2023, when the Housing and Water Ministry demolished seven homes in Mocha Arcadia to facilitate the construction of a four-lane highway from Eccles to Great Diamond.
Residents had been engaged in relocation discussions with Government since 2021, and Government had offered alternative house lots, compensation for existing properties, and move-in-ready housing options. While many residents had accepted these offers, some, including the applicants, had refused to vacate the land.
Evidence presented during the trial revealed that notices had been distributed in the area and published in national newspapers, advising residents to remove their belongings by November 2022.
Despite those warnings, the applicants had remained defiant, leading to the demolition exercise being conducted in January 2023.
The court heard that the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CHPA) had engaged in discussions with the residents, including the applicants, about their relocation options.
“The fact that the Central Housing & Planning Authority did not accede to the demand of the applicants to remain does not mean that they were not given a hearing,” Justice George has said.

Costs
In dismissing the cases, the court has ordered the applicants to pay costs of $250,000 to Attorney General Anil Nandlall and to the Central Housing and Planning Authority, and $500,000 to GuySuCo.

These costs are to be paid on or before June 30, 2025. This applies to both cases and as such the court cost will be $2 million.
Justice George has acknowledged that the demolition had caused losses, but she emphasized that the applicants had become trespassers once they were asked to vacate the land but had refused to do so.
“The applicants would have become trespassers after being asked to remove from the lands which they had no title to and to which they did not lay claim by any action or proceedings. They refused to move, and the owner or its agents would have been entitled to remove them,” she ruled.

Open to assistance
Despite their having been defeated legally, the court noted, Government has indicated that it is still willing to assist these applicants.
“It is for the applicants to decide if they are willing to respectfully engage, so that offer of assistance will be effective,” Justice George has said.
Government was represented by Attorney General Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, MP; Deputy Solicitor General Shoshanna V. Lall; and State Counsel Shania S. Persaud, Mohanie Sudama and Marnice Hestick. The CH&PA was represented by Darshan Ramdhani, KC, and by Arudranauth Gossai; while GuySuCo was represented by Kamal Ramkarran and Rafiq Khan, SC. The applicants were represented by attorneys Vivian M. Williams and Lyndon Amsterdam.