High Court dismisses petition for ownership of city property

The lengthy court battle between two top players in the local hardware business over prime property in Georgetown recently came to an end with the High Court dismissing a petition for declaration of title filed by Guyana Realty Investments Ltd (GRIL) – a company owned by Sattaur Gafoor.
Proprietor of National Hardware Limited, Eddie Boyer claimed that he and his wife, Donna Boyer, have been legal owners of the property located at Lot 117 B Regent and Alexander Streets, Georgetown, since September 2008, and that they, in fact, have a transport title to show same.
However, Gafoor, Chairman of Gafoor and Sons Group of Companies, alleged that GRIL – of which he is also the Chairman – has a prescriptive title, having purchased the property from Stanley Collymore back in 1993 to use as a paint shop.
GRIL had filed a petition back in May 2009 for a declaration of title in relation to the property, which according to court documents, is in “the prime commercial district of Regent Street, Bourda, Georgetown.”
The matter was heard by acting Chief Justice Roxanne George. GRIL was represented by Senior Counsels (SC) Rex McKay, Edward Luckhoo and Neil Boston; while the Boyers were defended by commercial lawyer Devindra Kissoon of London House Chambers and senior land lawyer Rajendra Poonai, SC.
According to court documents, GRIL maintained that it bought the property in 1993 from Bhaidwatie Bissoon and went into possession in that year and relies on its possession from 1993. The Boyers, on the other hand, while not acknowledging that GRIL was in possession from 1993, said that at best GRIL was in occupation of only a part of the property and was not in exclusive custody and control of the whole of the property and that the evidence on its behalf so confirms.
In response, GRIL said that the evidence by and on behalf of the Boyers is replete with inconsistencies and cannot be relied on such as to negate its control of the entire property.
In her judgement, Justice George pointed out that evidence during the trial show that Bissoon bought the property in 1989 for $1.5 million of which $1 million was paid and receipt acknowledged on the signing of agreement. The balance of $500,000 was to be paid on the passing of transport. But it was highlighted too that the 1989 agreement acknowledges that Bissoon was only in occupation and possession of a portion of the property.

Judgement
“There is no evidence that Bissoon was ever in possession of the remainder of the property or that she sought to exercise acts of ownership and control over it… [A] term of the 1993 contract clearly demonstrates that GRIL entered into actual possession of only one of the buildings [on the disputed property],” Justice George said in her judgment, which was seen by Guyana Times.
According to the High Court judge, no evidence was led as to who the tenants were and which building or buildings they occupied. She further asserted that there was no evidence that the balance of the purchase price ($500,000) was indeed paid on the agreement by Bissoon.
This, according to Justice George, is significant since no evidence was led on behalf of GRIL that this balance was ever paid. She contended that the non-payment of this balance on the purchase price has significance and cited the 2018 decision of the CCJ in Narine v Natram [2018] CCJ 26 AJ.
“It was held in this case that where a purchaser has not completed payment for a property, they cannot seek to prescribe as being an owner in undisturbed possession as against the titleholder. This, coupled with my conclusion that the clause in the 1989 contract which as quoted above provides that Ms Bissoon continued in possession of a portion of the property with the then vendor to give up vacant possession of the remainder of the property by the passing of transport, indicates that she was not in exclusive control of the entire property. Thus, I have concluded that the four years of possession that Ms Bissoon allegedly had cannot be counted as being adverse exclusive possession of the property,” the judge found.
On the other hand, the Chief Justice outlined that an agreement between the Boyers and Anthony Collymore (whom they bought the property from in 1978 and obtained the title until 2008) suggests that Collymore had control of the entire lot. However, the judge noted that no definitive findings were made in this regard since Collymore did not testify to confirm this and the evidence of two witnesses who did, lacks credibility.
However, according to the High Court judge, the lack of credibility or evidence to support the Boyers’ case that GRIL could not have been in possession does not mean that this company can succeed in its petition.
“This is because I have concluded that although I believe the evidence that GRIL purchased the property in 1993 and was in possession of a building which housed a paint store unto 2007, which would be in excess of 12 years; the evidence for GRIL does not establish actual possession and an intention to possess the whole property for the requisite period… It is clear from the 1993 agreement which they tendered that GRIL went into possession of that portion of the property which Ms Bissoon herself had possession of, which possession was confirmed by the agreement she had with Carol Blackmore (from whom she purchased the property),” she stated in her ruling.
Justice George, in applying Narine v Natram, explained that Bissoon could not have had exclusive possession of the property. She pointed out that with the revocation of Blackmore’s grant of probate and Bissoon not having concretised her ownership of the property, the right, title and interest she sold to GRIL would have been limited at best.
“This is a case that has turned not on the weakness of the case for the Boyers as opposers, but on the weakness of the case for GRIL as petitioner. Thus, I hold that the petition is dismissed with costs to the Boyers in the sum of $300,000,” Justice George ruled.