Feb 10, 2025
Allen et al v the Attorney General of Guyana et al – (The Cane view Litigation)
The Women in the Forefront of the Cane View Litigation to Hold the Government of a Thriving South American Country Accountable
Case Details
The Cane View litigation is a set of cases filed in the High Court of Guyana by residents of a community that was demolished by the government of Guyana. The Applicant is one of the cases is Mark Gordon, Shenika Simpson, and Lucrecia George. Another case was filed by Roxanne Allen, Junior Ellis and Lashonda Ellis. The respondents in all the case were initially the Attorney General, Minister of Housing and Water Collin Croal, and Guyana Sugar Corporation. However, the caption was eventually amended to add the Central Housing and Planning Authority and strike out the Minister of Housing and Water as respondents. The case relates to the demolition of homes in Cane View on January 5, 2023.
The cases center on the rights of long-term occupants of land in Guyana, particularly in the context of government development projects.
Relief Sought
The applicants are seeking several declarations, including that the Central Housing and Planning Authority acted ultra vires in demolishing homes in Cane View, that this violated their constitutional rights, and that they own the land through prescriptive title. They are also seeking damages and other orders.
Background on Cane View
Cane View is a community that emerged from Mocha/Arcadia, occupied primarily by African Guyanese residents since the 1990s. Witnesses testify that the community developed over time, with residents building homes and cultivating the land with intent to acquire prescriptive title. They further contend that government officials promised to facilitate their acquisition of title to the land.
However, supporting affidavits describe a violent demolition carried out by heavily armed police and excavators on January 5, 2023. Residents were prevented from retrieving possessions, bridges to the community were destroyed, and personal property was buried in pits. The demolition is described as causing significant trauma to residents.
Impact on Applicants
Affidavits detail the severe emotional and psychological impact of the demolition on the applicants in addition to loss of personal. Mark Gordon and Shenika Simpson are described as suffering from PTSD symptoms and feelings of worthlessness after losing their home and possessions. The demolition is said to have retraumatized Gordon, who had experienced housing instability as a child.
Agricultural economist Oswald Quamina provided a detailed analysis of the economic losses Gordon will suffer due to the destruction of his crops, livestock, and poultry. Quamina estimates Gordon’s minimum loss of income to be over $13 million Guyanese dollars from crops alone, with additional losses from livestock and poultry.
Legal Arguments
The applicants raise several legal arguments, including that prescriptive rights accrued before amendments to land laws, that a license with equity was created, and that there was a substantive legitimate expectation of receiving title. The applicants argue the government’s actions were procedurally unfair and in breach of natural justice.
Claims of Rights Violations
The applicants argue their constitutional rights were violated, including protection from deprivation of property, protection of the law, and protection from inhuman treatment. They claim they had legitimate expectations of receiving title based on government promises and actions taken to regularize the community, and prescriptive title to the land.
Why the Case is Consequential
The cases are:
Mark Gordon et al v Attorney General et al
Roxanne Allen et al v Attorney General et al
Read the fixed date application hereApplicant’s Legal Submissions
Facts
In 1997, Mark Gordon occupied vacant land at 11 Cane View, built a home, and maintained possession for decades. In 2023, the Central Housing and Planning Authority demolished homes in Cane View, including the applicants’, to build a highway.
Legal Framework
The applicants’ rights are based on constitutional articles promising land to tillers and proper housing, as well as laws on adverse possession. The Housing Act created the Central Housing and Planning Authority to help fulfill the constitutional right to housing.
Key Issues Raised
The main issues are whether the Central Housing and Planning Authority had authority over Cane View, whether it properly exercised any demolition powers, and whether the applicants had acquired protected interests in the land.
Arguments
The submissions argue that the Central Housing and Planning Authority had no legal authority over Cane View, as it was not the registered owner. The applicants claim they acquired ownership through adverse possession after occupying the land undisturbed for over 12 years. They contend in their submissions that the Central Housing and Planning Authority acted beyond its statutory powers in demolishing homes for a non-housing purpose.
The applicants argue their constitutional rights were violated, including protection from arbitrary deprivation of property, right to protection of the law, and protection from inhuman and degrading treatment. They seek exemplary damages to punish the alleged deliberate violation of rights and abuse of power by the respondents.
Read the Applicants’ submissions hereRespondent Submissions
Summary of CH&PA’s Legal Arguments
Darshan Ramdhani, KC Attorney for Central Housing and Panning Authority
CH&PA’s Framing of the Facts
The Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA) does not dispute that the Applicants were in possession of lands at Cane View since 1991. It states that about 2002, it started taking visiting and making a list of informal communities like Cane View with the aim of regularizing them. In 2008, CHPA met with residents about regularization. CHPA discovered GUYSUCO owned the lands and received approval to transfer them to CHPA in 2011. However, the lands fell within the reserve for a new highway, halting regularization. Residents, including the Applicants, initially agreed to relocate but some later refused.
CH&PA’s Framing of the Facts
The Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA) does not dispute that the Applicants were in possession of lands at Cane View since 1991. It states that about 2002, it started taking visiting and making a list of informal communities like Cane View with the aim of regularizing them. In 2008, CHPA met with residents about regularization. CHPA discovered GUYSUCO owned the lands and received approval to transfer them to CHPA in 2011. However, the lands fell within the reserve for a new highway, halting regularization. Residents, including the Applicants, initially agreed to relocate but some later refused.
Legal Arguments
CHPA contends the Applicants cannot claim adverse possession as they did not have exclusive control for 12 consecutive years before 2011, when new laws prevented acquiring state lands by prescription. CHPA argues it did not act ultra vires, as it has statutory power to acquire land and vary schemes. CHPA denies violating the Applicants’ property rights or right to due process, stating multiple opportunities were given to relocate or make representations.
Response to Allegations
CHPA refutes claims of inhumane treatment, stating its actions do not meet the threshold for such claims. It outlines steps taken to ensure residents’ safety and well-being during the removal process. CHPA denies acting fraudulently or unlawfully, asserting it substantially complied with legal requirements.
Read the CH&PA’s submissions here
Anil Nandlall, SC Attorney General of Guyana
On behalf of the government, the Attorney General argues on that the land in question is state land, transferred between various state entities. He It contends that the 2011 amendment to the Title to Land Act prevents acquisition of state land by prescription. The Applicants’ claim of occupying the land since 1997 falls short of the 30-year requirement for prescriptive rights prior to 2011. The document also refutes the Applicants’ later claim that the land was private, arguing this is inconsistent with their original position and unsupported by evidence.
In addressing the constitutional claims raised by the Applicants, the Attorney General argues that since the Applicants never legally acquired the land, they cannot claim protection from deprivation of property (Article 142) or arbitrary search or entry (Article 143). Regarding inhuman treatment (Article 141), the AG relies on the government’s efforts to relocate the Applicants and provide compensation, to mitigate the claims of injuries. He contends that the actions of CH&PA and the government do not constitute inhuman treatment.
