Tek Multi-Service Ltd v The Attorney General of Belize
| Jurisdiction | Belize |
| Judge | Alexander, J. |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 2024 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM No. CV656 of 2021 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Belize) |
CLAIM No. CV656 of 2021
IN THE SENIOR COURTS OF BELIZE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BELIZE
Mr. William A. Lindo for the Claimant
Ms. Samantha Matute for the Defendants
On 27 th January 2020, the Minister of Natural Resources (“the Minister”) approved Tek Multi-Service Limited's (“the claimant”) application to purchase Lot E19119 comprising approximately 782,397 square meters of land situate along the sea coast, Caribbean Shores Registration Section, Block No. 45, Belize City, Belize District. The purchase price was two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) and the claimant was required to pay the purchase price immediately or within three years of approval. Other conditions of purchase included the lease No. BZC-54/2019 remaining in effect until the freehold title was issued and a down payment of three hundred and thirty-three dollars and thirty-three cents ($333.33) to be paid to the Land and Surveys Office within three months of the approval. The claimant accepted the conditions and on 11 th May 2020 completed full payment of the purchase price.
The Registrar of Lands (“the Registrar”) issued a Land Certificate dated 12 th June 2020 under the Registered Land Act Cap. 194 R.E. 2011 (“RLA”) conferring on the claimant the title absolute over the land described in paragraph 1 above, which was by now labelled as Parcel 5112 on the Land Certificate. I shall refer to that parcel as “the disputed lands.”
About eight months after receiving the Land Certificate for the disputed lands, the claimant received a letter dated 22 nd February 2021 from the attorneys-at-law for the West Landivar Citizens Action Committee demanding that the claimant cease what it described as unlawful activity on the disputed lands. The attorneys pointed out that the disputed lands form part of the National Public Reserve Dolphin Park (“the Dolphin Park Reserve”) which was so declared on 16 th October 2007, and published in the Gazette of 20 th October 2007 “for the protection of the mangrove reserve and marine life.” The letter accused the claimant of unlawfully causing the illegal subdivision of the Dolphin Park Reserve and unlawfully purchasing the disputed lands without any de-reservation having occurred under the National Lands Act Cap.191 R.E. 2003. The claimant was warned that a failure to comply with the demand to cease and desist from dealing with the disputed lands would result in further legal action.
The West Landivar Citizens Action Committee (“the Committee”) is a duly registered company in Belize. By way of an agreement dated 15 th August 2007 with the Belize City Council, the Committee was appointed as the custodian of the Dolphin Park Reserve.
By letter dated 30 th March 2021, the claimant's attorneys wrote to the Minister stating that the claimant was “shocked” that title for the disputed lands “was issued in the ‘Dolphin Park Reserve’ without the then Minister taking steps to dereserve the disputed lands.” The letter called upon the Minister to exercise his powers under section 6(7) of the National Lands Act to dereserve that portion of the disputed lands falling within the Dolphin Park Reserve or alternatively for the payment of damages to the claimant for breach of contract being the market value of the disputed lands. The Minister acknowledged receipt of the claimant's letter and requested an extension of time to allow the Ministry to complete its “investigation and assess the options for an amicable resolution” before the commencement of any proceedings in the Supreme Court. The claimant received no further word from the Minister.
While letters were being exchanged between the Committee, the claimant and the Minister, the Registrar by Instrument LRS-202101677 on 23 rd February 2021 placed a Restriction over the disputed lands on the Register pursuant to section 135 of the RLA. The reasons disclosed by the Registrar were that: a national reserve cannot be owned by a private individual; a de-reservation of the Dolphin Park Reserve did not occur; unlawful subdivision of the Dolphin Park Reserve via Subdivision Entry Plan 19119 dated 2 nd January 2020 citing the name Dolphin Park; damage and destruction to mangroves; and the blocking of the Dolphin Park Reserve and its nearby public access boat slip. From the Restriction Instrument, the Committee is listed as a reason or ground for the placement of the restriction on the Register. Indeed, the defendants pleaded that the restriction was entered on the application of the Committee.
By claim dated 25 th October 2021, the claimant commenced proceedings against the defendants for a declaration that it is entitled to possession of the said land and specific performance of the contract of sale. In the alternative, the claimant sought general and special damages for breach of the contract of sale, and aggravated damages for the high-handed way in which the Registrar registered the Restriction on the Land Register.
In their defence, the defendants denied that the claimant is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. They averred that the claimant was at all material times aware that the disputed lands formed part of the larger portion designated as the Dolphin Park Reserve comprising 9987.7 square meters. Since there was no de-reservation of the Dolphin Park Reserve, any sale by the Minister would be contrary to the National Lands Act Cap. 191 R.E. 2003 and is a nullity and any agreement for such a sale would likewise be an illegality, null and void.
For its part, the claimant replied and denied any knowledge that the disputed lands formed part of the Dolphin Park Reserve. The claimant stated that it was the Minister who had failed to take the necessary steps to ensure that title to the disputed lands was passed to the claimant free from all encumbrances in breach of contract. A failure to dereserve does not void the sale or the agreement for the sale of the disputed lands and it remains open to the Minister to dereserve the disputed lands and pass a good title to the claimant.
Before the filing of witness statements and the trial of this claim, I acceded to an application by Ms. Matute to determine, as a preliminary issue of law, the question of whether the sale of the disputed lands was ultra vires the National Lands Act rendering the agreement between the claimant and the Government of Belize (represented by the Minister) null and void. By an order dated 5 th June 2023, I directed the parties to file written submissions on this preliminary issue.
It is convenient at this point to set out the material provisions of the National Lands Act:
5. (1) National lands shall not, save as is excepted by section 6, be dealt with or disposed of, except in the manner hereinafter provided.
(2) The Minister shall appoint an Advisory Committee to advise him generally on all matters relating to land administration.
(3) The Minister may appoint local committees to assist him in the consideration of applications for all tenants of national lands and other matters relating to land distribution.
6. (1) Nothing contained in this Act shall prevent the Minister from excepting from sale in the ordinary manner and reserving to the Government of Belize the right of disposing of in a manner as for the public interests may seem best, such lands as may be required as reserves, public roads or other internal communications, or commons, or as the sites of public buildings, or as places for the interment of the dead, or places for the education, recreation and amusement of the inhabitants of any town or village, or as the sites of public quays, wharves or landing places on the sea coast or shores of streams, or for the construction of tram or railways or railway stations, or canals, or for the purpose of sinking shafts and digging for minerals, or for any purposes of public defence, safety, utility, convenience or enjoyment, or for otherwise facilitating the improvement and settlement of Belize, or for special purposes.
(2) The Minister shall also have power to alter, vary or add to the ordinary terms and stipulations upon which any grant, lease or licence is made, should it be considered expedient to do so in any special instance.
(3) All reserves shall be notified in three successive issues of the Gazette and in one issue of a local newspaper and set forth on plans in the office of the Commissioner.
(4) All dereservations of reserves shall be notified in three consecutive issues of the Gazette and in one issue of a local newspaper.
13. (1) National lands may be sold at such prices and on such terms and conditions as to improvements and otherwise as the Minister may prescribe on the advice of the Advisory Committee.
(2) An application to purchase national lands shall be made in the form of the Second Schedule.
Ms. Matute submits that the National Lands Act prohibited the contract for the sale of the disputed lands making the contract illegal and void ab initio. The object of the National Lands Act is to govern national lands. The legislative intent to be discerned from section 5(1) is that it dictates the lawful manner of disposal of national lands. It prescribes that national lands can only be lawfully dealt with or disposed of in conformity with the provisions of that Act, which at section 13 confers on the Minister a discretionary power to sell national lands where an application has been made. However, section 5(1) also contemplates and authorizes the disposal of national lands in accordance with section 6.
According to Ms. Matute, the purpose of section 6 is to exempt national lands from sale in the ordinary manner provided for under section 13 and to reserve the same to...
To continue reading
Request your trial