Chief Justice dismisses cases filed by Mocha Arcadia squatters

-MP Nima Flue-Bess’ evidence not credible and lacks relevance, Chief Justice says

Today, 7th February 2025, the Honourable Chief Justice Roxane George
dismissed the claims filed in September 2023 by the last six (6) remaining squatters
at Mocha Arcadia/ Caneview (“the Applicants”). These squatters refused to
relocate from the area, despite having been served adequate notices to relocate by
the Central Housing and Planning Authority (“CHPA”), and further, despite
Government’s numerous efforts to incentivise this relocation.

The Chief Justice ruled that the squatters have no rights, interests or title to the
lands, which are lands owned by the State. Those lands are properly known as
Block ‘X’ Plantation Herstelling, East Bank Demerara, and are lands through
which the four-lane Highway, now known as the Heroes Highway, traverses.

The Applicants claimed, inter alia, that they hold prescriptive rights over the
Mocha Arcadia lands, while also seeking declarations for breaches of their
fundamental rights under Articles 141 (protection from inhuman treatment), 142
(deprivation of property) and 143 (protection against arbitrary entry) of the
Constitution. They sued the State for damages totaling over two hundred million
dollars ($200,000,000.00).

This landmark judgment addresses the critical issue of squatting on public lands,
and in particular, squatters who attempt to obstruct and delay important national
projects for the public good.

In this regard, the Honourable Chief Justice, in her Ruling, emphasised that this
case has implications for how persons who occupy parapets and reserves which
belong to the Government or are managed by Local Authorities are to be dealt
with. The Chief Justice stated that the full written judgment will be delivered at a
later date.

The Honourable Chief Justice dismissed the Applications and ruled, inter alia, that:
a. The Applicants’ have not produced to the Court any evidence to
demonstrate that they acquired prescriptive rights to the Mocha lands
before the passage of the Title to Land (Prescription and Limitation)
Amendment Act 2011;
b. c. The Court noted there was no tangible or credible evidence given by the
Applicants to establish any right to the lands or to be given title to same;
The Applicants own evidence demonstrated that the CHPA engaged the
residents of Mocha Arcadia informing them that the lands could not be
regularized, as the lands were required for construction of the four-lane
highway; and the squatters were required to relocate and would be
allocated house-lots;
d. CHPA issued several notices to the Applicants informing them of the
demolition exercise, and they were the only 6 out of over 150 squatters who
refused to move;
e. CHPA was entitled to remove them; they therefore remained at their own
f. peril; Given that the Applicants did not possess any right over the lands, they
became trespassers when they were issued with the notices to remove, and
chose to remain on the lands;
g. In any event, the Applicants failed to establish, by their evidence, that they
are entitled to any damages alleged, as there was not even an exhibit of
income tax returns for the purported large-scale operations that were
allegedly conducted on the Mocha Lands, or any evidence whatsoever
establishing the losses they allege to have suffered;
h. The breaches of the Constitution claimed by the Applications were
unfounded, as they were wholly unsubstantiated by the Applicants, who
pleaded insufficient and inaccurate evidence, which the Court found not to
be credible in numerous circumstances.

1. The Court also rejected, as lacking specificity and relevance, the evidence of
   Opposition Member of Parliament – Ms. Nima Flue-Bess, who provided evidence
   in support of the squatters’ cases.
2. The Honourable Chief Justice noted that it was strange that the Applicants claimed
   CHPA did not control the Mocha Lands, while their own evidence showed they
   initially approached CHPA for regularization, instead of seeking prescriptive title
   as they claimed.
3. The Court also dismissed the Applicants’ claim against GUYSUCO against which
   the Applicants claimed no reliefs. The Court ruled that GUYSUCO was wrongly
   named as a party to the claims, given that GUYSUCO’s ownership of the land
   ceased in 2017 by virtue of Vesting Order No. 45 of 2017, which vested the lands
   in the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (“NICIL”).
4. In the circumstances, having failed abysmally to establish their claim, the
   Respondents – the Attorney General, CHPA and GUYSUCO – were awarded
   costs to the tune of $2 million, which the Applicants are to pay by the 3rd June 2025.
5. The Attorney General was represented by the Attorney General, Mohabir Anil
   Nandlall SC MP, Shoshanna V. Lall-Deputy Solicitor General, Shania S. Persaud,
   Mohanie Sudama and Marnice Hestick- State Counsel.
6. CHPA was represented by Darshan Ramdhani KC and Arudranauth Gossai,
   Attorneys-at-Law. GUYSUCO was represented by Kamal Ramkarran and Rafiq-
   Khan SC.
7. The Applicants were represented by Vivian M. Williams and Lyndon
   Amsterdam, Attorneys-at-Law.