Minister of Finance Colm Imbert has responded to media reports that a Tobago homeowner was successful in litigation against the State over the acquisition of land, noting that several key facts from the Judgment were omitted from publications.
He added that the outcome meant "the State is now required to pay twice for land acquired and paid for over 25 years ago."
In a statement on Monday, Imbert referred to the case of Wolwin Lovell where a dispute for the compensation for the compulsory acquisition of property needed for a new Airport Terminal Building in Tobago arose.
In an interview with a Tobago reporter earlier this month Wolwin Lovell said he was victorious in the claim and said the Prime Minister and Imbert would have to be accountable for their actions.
In Monday's statement, Imbert said captions which claimed the State lost the case were inaccurate and concerning.
Lovell, who was the claimant, initiated legal action against the State by challenging the compulsory acquisition of a 630.05 square metre parcel of land at Lot No 1, Crompstain Trace, Crown Point, Tobago.
He claimed that his right to enjoy his property under section 4(a) of the Constitution was breached along with his rights to equality before the law and equality of treatment by a public authority as guaranteed by sections 4(b) and 4(d) respectively. He asked for $3.3 million in compensation.
It was claimed that Lovell received the property from his father Gaston Lovell on July, 17, 1995.
The land was part of a wider portion of land intended to be part of the ANR Robinson International Airport Project.
The State claimed it acquired the property under the publication of the Section 5 Legal Notice under the Land Acquisition Act on March, 7, 1996.
"Despite the said acquisition by the State, the claimant has lived on those lands rent free from then to now."
[caption id="attachment_1011359" align="alignnone" width="1024"] Wolwin Lovell -[/caption]
A claim for compensation was entered by RoPam Estate Agency on July, 8, 1996 on behalf of Gaston Lovell and his son for the land, the State's defence said.
It also said the elder Lovell was fully compensated for the property as he claimed to be acting on behalf of his son. The State claimed Gaston Lovel even submitted a valuation report for the property that belonged to Wolwin Lovell.
The younger Lovell, however, denied that his father ever acted as his agent submitting evidence that, "Gaston Lovell was never at any time my “Agent” in any dealings with the State for negotiations for compensation for land, nor was I ever his “Agent” for said purpose."
Imbert's statement opined: "The clear effect of the claimant’s denial was that his father improperly made a claim for compensation in respect of the Claimant’s property, and that his father, wrongfully or fraudulently, received and retained compensation from the State in respect of the property of his son."
The State could not challenge Wol
