Appeal Court refuses to stop NHA housing project

The Court of Appeal yesterday refused to deem the appeal by residents of Toruba, south Trinidad, urgent, but promised that once the appeal record is filed it will list the matter for hearing.

In another similar appeal by farmers of Valsayn east, the Court reserved judgment for an injunction among other reliefs,  to stop a housing project being carried out by the National Housing Authority (NHA). Hearing both applications were Justices Roger Hamel-Smith (President), Rolston Nelson and Wendell Kangaloo. Russell Martineau SC and  Deborah Peake instructed by Glenda Edwards, appeared for NHA,  while Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj SC, Garnet Mungalsingh and Darrel Allahar,  represented the applicants.

In the first appeal matter yesterday, Toruba resident Balroop Ramlochan and others, filed a motion of appeal  asking the Court among other things to deem their appeal urgent; an injunction to stop NHA from continuing with its housing project and to treat the hearing of this application  as the hearing of the appeal. The Court refused to grant the injunction or deem the application urgent, but gave directions that once all appeal documents are filed, a date will be fixed  for hearing. In this matter, the residents had filed an application for judicial review against NHA which had repossessed State lands in Toruba which the residents were using. NHA, a Government agency,  wanted the lands for housing construction. In an application dated January 29, 2003,  Justice Prakash Moosai granted the residents leave for judicial review and ordered  NHA to stay the building of houses on the land. The substantive motion of this application was heard by Justice Nolan Bureaux and dismissed.

Following statements by NHA, a new application for judicial review was filed by Ramlochan and others, but Justice Maureen Rajnauth-Lee who heard the application refused them leave. It is against this order  that the residents have appealed. In the second matter, farmer Garvin Thomas and others of Valsayn east,  filed an application for judicial review which was also heard by Rajnauth Lee. In this matter, she  granted them leave on August 18, 2003, but no injunction restraining NHA from building. According to Maharaj, at the time there was no evidence before the Court to require a stay because NHA had only cleared the land and had not started any construction work. 

However, sometime later, when construction work actually started, the farmers filed a summon for an injunction to stop NHA. But Justice Nolan Bureaux who heard the matter, refused to grant an injunction. The farmers have appealed Bureaux’s decision. Martineau argued that when the farmers went before Rajnauth-Lee they knew something was going on, hence the reason for their application for a stay  which was refused. He said NHA, being aware that no stay was granted, went ahead with its work and now it is in such an advanced stage that  stoping it  would be a great waste of taxpayers’ money. The Court will give its judgment  next Wednesday.