In a landmark property rights decision, Trinidad and Tobago’s High Court has resolved a decades-long dispute between Dipcon Engineering Services Ltd and the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) regarding ownership of over eight acres of valuable State land in Valsayn South.
Justice Westmin James delivered a comprehensive 50-page ruling establishing that Dipcon lawfully acquired ownership through adverse possession, having maintained open, exclusive, and continuous control of the property for well beyond the statutory limitation period. The court determined this extended occupation effectively extinguished the State’s title, granting the engineering company legal entitlement to the property.
The contested parcel at Real Springs East, Valsayn South, near the Southern Main Road, became the center of a complex legal battle. Dipcon asserted continuous occupation since May 1981, while the Attorney General and HDC maintained the land was acquired by the State in 1979 for public purposes and subsequently vested in state housing authorities.
The court meticulously examined the property’s history, noting that Dipcon initially entered the land without permission to support construction works on the Valsayn housing project. Evidence demonstrated the company conducted extensive improvements including clearing and filling approximately seven acres, erecting buildings and perimeter fencing, installing utilities, operating a concrete batching plant, and maintaining continuous security and commercial use over several decades.
A pivotal legal question addressed whether occupation time while the land was State-owned could count toward adverse possession after transfer to a non-State entity. Justice James ruled that Dipcon’s possession satisfied the applicable limitation period and that subsequent vesting in housing authorities did not invalidate accrued rights.
The court rejected arguments that Dipcon lacked necessary intention to possess the land, finding the company’s conduct demonstrated clear intent to control and exclude others, including paper title holders. The judge noted that physical acts of possession were “substantial and enduring” and represented “acts of dominion” rather than transient or equivocal use.
While upholding Dipcon’s claim against HDC, the court dismissed the corporation’s counter-claim against the engineering firm and similarly dismissed Dipcon’s claim against the Attorney General. The ruling establishes significant precedent regarding adverse possession rights against state entities in Trinidad and Tobago.