Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Appellant) v EDASCO Ltd (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)

Hearing listed

Case summary
Appeal
Change log

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2024/0033

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago

Respondent(s)

EDASCO Ltd

Issue

(1) Was the police’s seizure and detention of property pursuant to its powers under the State Lands Act Chap. 57:01 (“the Act”) lawful? (2) Who had jurisdiction and control over the property from the time of its seizure? (3) What is the correct process for the owner of the property seized to seek its release?

Facts

On 16 July 2019 police arrested three men on suspicion of illegal quarrying and seized the truck they were using, which belonged to the Respondent. Upon the Respondent’s formal demand for the return of the truck, the police said that the truck and been seized under the Act and was lawfully detained. The men were charged with offences under the Act on 30 September 2019. On 20 May 2020 the Respondent brought a claim for, among other things, damages for the unlawful detention of the truck. The Appellant filed a defence which was later amended, relying on the provisions of the Act and averring that the truck had been lawfully detained and in any event was by then under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court. The charges against the three men were dismissed on 7 May 2019. On 6 August 2021 the Respondent applied to strike out the Appellant’s amended defence and on 20 August 2021 the judge ordered the Appellant to release the truck. The truck was delivered up to the Respondent on 15 September 2021. In a judgment given on 14 July 2022 Gobin J struck out the Appellant’s defence, finding that its reliance on the Act was misconceived, and awarded damages to the Respondent. The Appellant appealed. In a judgment delivered on 23 May 2020 the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, ruling that the Appellant was entitled to defend the claim in respect of the period from the date of seizure (16 July 2019) to the laying of charges under the Act (30 September 2019), but otherwise dismissed the appeal. The Appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.