分类： society

The Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation of Trinidad and Tobago has issued an official alert regarding fraudulent information circulating through digital channels. On Sunday, the ministry formally discredited a fabricated media release titled ‘Revised Operating Hours of Licensing Division’ that has been spreading across online platforms.

In an unequivocal statement, the ministry confirmed that all Licensing Division offices throughout the dual-island nation maintain their standard operational schedule of Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. No changes to these hours have been implemented or are currently planned.

The ministry emphasized the critical importance of obtaining information through authorized channels only. Citizens were expressly advised to disregard the misleading notice and instead rely exclusively on the ministry’s official communication platforms for verified updates and announcements. This precautionary measure aims to prevent public confusion and ensure that citizens receive accurate information regarding government services.

This incident highlights the ongoing challenge of digital misinformation affecting public institutions. The ministry’s proactive response demonstrates its commitment to transparency and accurate information dissemination while safeguarding citizens from potentially disruptive false claims.

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.

In a significant judicial ruling, the High Court has rejected a medical doctor’s attempt to advance his judicial review claim against the Children’s Authority without the agency’s defense. Justice Robin Mohammed delivered the comprehensive written decision that simultaneously denied the Authority’s motion to dismiss or suspend proceedings, ensuring the constitutional challenge will be heard on its substantive merits.

The case originated from the Children’s Authority’s August 16, 2022 decision to remove the physician’s two minor children following allegations of abuse. The doctor subsequently filed a fixed-date claim on December 21, 2022, contending the removal was unreasonable, arbitrary, and violated his constitutional rights to due process and family life under sections 4(b) and 4(c) of the Constitution.

Justice Mohammed characterized the doctor’s request for undefended proceedings as ‘draconian’ in nature, noting that such relief effectively amounted to a default judgment—expressly prohibited in fixed-date claims under Civil Proceedings Rules. However, the court demonstrated judicial flexibility by granting the Authority’s application for extended filing deadlines, acknowledging confusion regarding whether the agency qualified as ‘the state’ for procedural purposes, compounded by staffing transitions within its legal team.

The court determined that while the Authority missed the standard 28-day response window, the delay was relatively brief and unintentional. Justice Mohammed emphasized that the public significance of child protection matters and the seriousness of constitutional allegations warranted hearing the Authority’s evidence. ‘The prejudice to the claimant of a short further delay is outweighed by the greater prejudice to the administration of justice in deciding such a claim without the defendant’s evidence,’ the judgment stated.

Additionally, the court rejected arguments that the judicial review constituted an abuse of process or improper collateral attack on prior Children’s Court and Court of Appeal decisions that had upheld interim wardship orders. The ruling distinguished the current proceedings as addressing distinct public law and constitutional issues regarding the lawfulness of the initial removal—matters not previously adjudicated.

The court also denied an alternative application to stay proceedings pending parallel Family Court actions, reasoning that such suspension would unjustly delay resolution of constitutional complaints without advancing judicial efficiency. The Authority must now file its response affidavit within 21 days, with the case scheduled for case management conference on February 5. Costs determinations were reserved pending final resolution of the substantive claim.