First St. Vincent Bank Ltd v Williams et Al
| Jurisdiction | St Vincent and the Grenadines |
| Judge | Joseph, J. |
| Judgment Date | 01 December 1992 |
| Neutral Citation | VC 1992 HC 22 |
| Docket Number | No. 521 of 1991 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Vincent) |
| Date | 01 December 1992 |
High Court
Joseph, J.
No. 521 of 1991
Mr. O.R. Sylvester, Q.C., and Mr. Mark Williams for the plaintiff.
Mr. Oscar Ramjeet and Mrs. Judith Jones Morgan for the defendants.
Administrative law - Compulsory acquisition — By letter dated November 1, 1985 the Government indicated its interest in acquiring the plaintiff's land for $80,000 — On February 10, 1987 the Government wrote to the plaintiff enclosing a preliminary notification dated February 3, 1987 authorising a preliminary survey of the land — Plaintiff replied by letter dated March 10, 1987 and indicating its willingness to negotiate the acquisition of the land — On September 18, 1987 plaintiff gave notice to the Government that the acquisition be abandoned under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1946 — On April 19, 1988 the first publication of the Governor General's declaration of the acquisition of the land appeared in the Gazette — The second publication appeared on April 26, 1988 — Whether the acquisition of the land was abandoned — The effect of the failure of the plaintiff to serve notice of the action on the defendants under the Public Officers Protection Act, 1981 On March 6, 1989 by letter the Government offered the plaintiff $200,000 for the land — Whether plaintiff's acceptance of this order amounted to waiver of the abandonment — Whether plaintiff estopped from alleging that the acquisition was abandoned — Whether the plaintiff's agreement to accept the offer of $200,000 amounted to equitable conversion — Assessment of damages under the Land Acquisition Act — Land Acquisition Act 1946, ss. 3, 4, 9, 10 and 19 — Public Officers Protection Act 1981, s. 3.
The plaintiff was the fee simple owner of a parcel of land measuring four acres twenty five poles situated at Murray's Village in the Parish of St. George (the land). The first defendant is authorised officer for the purposes of the Land Acquisition Act 1946 (No. 22 of 1946) (the Act). The second defendant is the Attorney General of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and represents the Crown.
By a preliminary notification published in the Government Gazette (gazette) Vol.120 dated 3rd February 1987 (No. 5) the first defendant. Pursuant to section 4 of the Act, was authorised to enter upon the plaintiff's land to make a preliminary survey and conduct other investigations connected with the likely acquisition of the land for a public purpose.
The first publication of the Governor General's declaration of the acquisition of the land appeared in the gazette vol.121 (No. 16) dated 19th April 1988. The second publication in the gazette was on 26th April 1988.
The plaintiff by a specially endorsed writ filed on 12th November 1991 alleges that the land was occupied partly by tenants and partly by persons who had made down payments on the purchase price for lots of land which land sales had been put in the hands of an agent. In a defence filed on 27th November 1991, the defendants admit the former allegation but denies the allegation that sales were being handled by an agent.
The plaintiff also alleges that, after the publication or the preliminary notifications the first defendant entered upon the land and exercised act of ownership thereon whereupon the plaintiff's tenants and purchasers ceased or refused to pay any further rental or purchase monies to the plaintiff. Me defendants deny this and state that the first defendant entered the land acquired under the Act for the purpose or carrying out a survey of the land. Further, the defendants aver that the land is still in the occupation of the tenants and purchasers.
-
(1) claims that the defendants failed and or refused to complete or abandon the purported acquisition and a notice was served on the first defendant pursuant to section 9 of the Act on 18th September 1987 requesting the authorised officer to abandon the acquisition within one month thereof but he continued is possession of the plaintiff's land and is still in possession.
-
(2) states that notwithstanding the abandonment of the acquisition, by a declaration of acquisition of land published in the gazette vol. 97 dated 19th April 1987 (No. 16) pursuant to section 3 of the Act the defendants persisted to represent that they own and to act as owners of the plaintiff's land and continue to exercise acts of ownership and wrongfully purported to vest the plaintiff's land in the Government and remain in possession of the land.
-
(3) claims that by reason of the allegations it has made it has been deprived or the use and enjoyment of the land and the tenants have ceased to pay any further rents and purchasers have ceased to pay for any of the land and would be purchasers have failed to come forward as hitherto to purchase any of the land and the plan has suffered loss and damage. Particulars of special damage:
-
(1) A declaration that the purported acquisition of the plaintiff's land by the defendants is wrongful, illegal and contrary to law.
-
(2) A declaration that the purported vesting of the plaintiff's land in the Government is wrongful, illegal and is a nullity.
-
(3) An injunction to restrain the first defendant whether by himself his agents, assistants and workmen from entering upon or occupying or offering for sale or selling any of the plaintiff's land and or from exercising any acts of ownership thereon.
-
(4) Damages, further or other relief.
| (a) loss of tenants rent from February 1987 | |
| up to the date of writ 11th November 1991 | 1,393.00 and continuing |
| (b) surveying and engineering cost | 93,429.85 |
| (c) loss of payment from purchaser | 31333.92 |
The first defendant claims that he has properly acquired the land on behalf of the Government and that on the 19th April 1988 a declaration of acquisition notice was published in the gazette.
The defendants contend that, although the land has been properly acquired by Government, the plaintiff continues to collect rental from tenants. They deny that the plaintiff has suffered loss or damage and state that the Government is prepared to pay reasonable compensation for the acquired land.
The defendants claim that the plaintiff has failed to comply with section 3 of the Public Officers Protection Act, 1981 (No. 4 of 1981) since no notice was served on the defendants as required by this Act.
In a reply filed on 9th March 1992 the plaintiff alleges that the defendants have acted contrary to the provisions of the Act and in violation of the plaintiff's proprietary rights: that their act is illegal and unlawful and is a continuing actionable wrong and the defendants are precluded from relying on the Pubic Officers Protection Act.
From evidence adduced at the trial, Government indicated an interest in acquiring the land in 1985 at which time the then Acting Minister of Trade, Industry and Agriculture by letter of 1st November 1985 wrote the plaintiff:
I am writing on behalf of the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to confirm Government's interest in the portion of land (four (4) acres eight (8) poles) bought by your Bank on September 21st, 1981.
“The land is occupied, by approximately thirty nine (39) families who have been tenants for varying periods of time up to twenty one (21) years and many of whom are now facing the real possibility of being evicted.
The property was bought for fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), and since its purchase no infrastructural improvement whatever has been made. I am now making an offer on behalf of the Government of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines for the purchase of the said property for eighty thousand dollars ($80,000.00).”
The procedure for acquisition of land may be set in motion in two ways. When a decision has been taken to acquire a particular area of land, section 3 of the Act authorises the Governor General to cause a declaration to be published in two ordinary issues of the gazette. The vesting of the land in the Crown is indicated by the second publication of the declaration in the gazette.
The second mode is where the Governor General is considering the acquisition of land but requires a preliminary survey to be made to ascertain whether the land is suitable for the intended purpose before a decision is made. Then the procedure in section 4 of the Act is followed.
Section 3:
“(1) If the Governor in Council considers that any land should be acquired for a public purpose he may cause a declaration to that effect to be made in the manner provided by this section and the declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land to which it relates is required for a public purpose.
(2) Every declaration shall be published in two ordinary issues of the Gazette and copies thereof shall be posted on one of the buildings (if any) on the land or exhibited at suitable places in the locality in which the land is situate.
(3) Upon the second publication of the declaration in the Gazette as aforesaid the land shall vest absolutely in the Crown.
Section 4 enacts:
If it appears to the Governor in council that any land is likely to be required for any purpose which, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, is a public purpose and it is necessary to make a preliminary survey or other investigation of the land, he may cause a notification to that effect to be published in the Gazette and thereupon it shall be lawful for the authorised officer (and his agents, assistants and workmen) to do all or any of the following things …..
(a) to enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in any locality to which the notification relates;”
By letter of 10th February 1987 the Authorised Officer wrote to the plaintiff.
“After several approaches to the Manager, St. Vincent Credit and...
To continue reading
Request your trial