Law Lords settle 24-year-old dispute

A DISPUTE as to the real owner of a parcel of land at Eastern Main Road, Tacarigua, was finally settled yesterday by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England. In the end, Buddhu Samaroo won the right to the land as the Law Lords dismissed the appeal brought by Jagdeo Sookraj. The Privy Council comprised Lords Nicholls, Steyn, Millett, Scott, and Baroness Hale. Dr Charles Seepersad and James Ramdhun appeared for Sookraj, while Stanley Marcus SC and Karen Piper represented Samaroo.

The registered owner of the land was Deolal Ramute who was living in England. He wanted to sell the land, so on October 29, 1980, he granted a power of attorney to Hazrath Mohammed, a resident of Tacarigua. On November 3, 1980, Ramute signed a memorandum of agreement to sell the land to Samaroo for $400,000. It was agreed that $50,000 be paid as a deposit, but nothing was paid by Samaroo. But on January 8, 1981, Mohammed agreed to sell the land to Sookraj for the sum of $395,000, to which Sookraj paid $3,727. A memorandum of agreement was signed by both parties. One month later, Ramute visited Trinidad on holiday. He met with Samaroo and discovered that the $50,000 deposit had not been paid. Realising that Ramute did not intend to sell the property to him, Sookraj launched proceedings in the High Court on February 27, 1981. He also lodged a caveat forbidding the registration of any instrument affecting the land.

On November 19, 1981, Ramute signed an agreement to transfer the land to Samaroo in consideration of $400,000. Sookraj started the court action in an attempt to prevent Samaroo from demolishing the building on the land which had become dangerous after a fire. He failed to obtain an injunction but proceeded with claims for a declaration that he was the beneficial owner and for damages for waste. Both Samaroo and Sookraj claimed to have entered into valid contracts to purchase the land. Samaroo did not dispute the validity of Sookraj’s contract but claimed priority on the grounds that since his contract was first in time, his equity as contractual purchaser was to be preferred to that of Sookraj’s.