Mahabir v Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Jones, J.A.,De La Bastide, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 21 June 2002
• Neutral Citation: TT 2002 CA 52
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1998
• Court: Court of Appeal (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 21 June 2002

Court of Appeal

de la Bastide, C.J.; Permanand, J.A.; Jones, J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1998

Mahabir

and

Attorney General

Appearances

Mr. A. Ramlogan for the appellant.

Mr. J. Walker for the respondent.

Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights and Freedoms — Appeal on the ground, inter alia, that by refusing to issue the Inspector's Certificate despite previously approving the transfer of the vehicle, thereby denying the appellant the use of the taxi had amounted to a deprivation of his right to the enjoyment of his property without due process of law — Finding that appellant's constitutional rights had not been breached since the car was in his possession at the material times — Finding that the appellant's motion was an abuse of process since he could have proceeded by way of judicial review of the decision of the Motor Vehicle Inspector — Appeal dismissed.

1 I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment delivered by Jones, J.A. I agree with it and do not wish to add to it.

J. Permanand,

Justice of Appeal.

Jones, J.A.

2 The appellant in this matter purchased a maxi-taxi (taxi) bearing registration No. HAE 5373 in June 1996 from one Kelly Williams who had purchased it from the First Citizen Bank. It appears, however, that at the time of the sale by the Bank, the taxi was still registered in the name of one Salack Sookram from whom it was seized. On the 12th June, 1996, the appellant appeared in person at the Licensing Office Port of Spain, and presented the vehicle for the transfer of ownership pursuant to section 19 of the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act, Chap. 48:50 (the Act) Section 19 so far as is relevant to these proceedings provides as follows: -

• “19(1) On the change of possession of a motor vehicle otherwise than by death;

  • (a) the motor vehicle shall not be used for more than seven days after such change of possession unless the new owner is registered as the owner thereof;

  • (b) the registered owner and the new owner shall, within seven days after such change of possession, make application in writing signed by both of them to the Licensing Authority giving the name and address of the new owner and the date of change of possession and such application shall be accompanied by the certificate of registration and the prescribed fee. The Automotive Licensing Officer shall thereupon by endorsement of the certificate of registration and entry in the registry substitute the name of the new owner for that of the registered owner and shall date and initial the substitution and from such date the new owner shall for all purposes be deemed to be the registered owner of the motor vehicle described in the relevant entry in the register and in such certificate of registration.

  • (c) The registered owner and the person seeking registration as the registered owner shall both be present before the Licensing Authority together with the used motor vehicle that is the subject of the transfer at the time that transfer of registration occurs.

• (2) ……

• (3) ……

• (4)

• (5) where a registration of transfer of a used motor vehicle has not been made within seven days after the change of possession of that vehicle in accordance with subsection (1)(a) the registered owner shall be liable to pay the Licensing Authority a penalty of two hundred dollars.

• (6) where a registration of transfer referred to in subsection (5) has not been made within fourteen days of the change of possession of the vehicles, the registered owner is guilty of an offence and is liable upon summary conviction to a fine of five thousand dollars and imprisonment for six months.

• 19(c)(1) Where a transfer of registration on the change of possession of a used motor vehicle is as a result of the sale of that vehicle, the purchaser shall produce to the Licensing Authority at the time of registration of the change of possession of the vehicle a receipt evidencing such sale.”

3 From his own account given in his affidavit filed in support of his motion for constitutional relief, the appellant deposed that he had purchased the taxi from Kelly Williams for $105,000 and that Williams and himself had gone to the Licensing Office as required by the Act for the purpose of registering the transfer. At that time, however, Salack Sookram was the owner on the register, but there is no evidence that Sookram was present at the Licensing Office. In fact from all indications, he was not there. Although the appellant had deposed that he had purchased the vehicle for $105,000, yet he evidenced this purchase by producing to the Licensing Authority a receipt dated the 12th June 1996, purporting to be signed by Salack Sookram, and indicating a purchase price of $60,000. Furthermore, a copy of the application form seeking the registration of the transfer, which is required to effect the change, was exhibited to the affidavit of the appellant. It was dated 5th June 1996 and showed the date of purchase as the said 5th June 1996. It also showed the chassis number as WPGE 23-003532. This chassis number corresponded with that of the vehicle on the register which bore Registration No. HAE 5373.

4 On the 12th June, 1996, when the taxi was presented at the Licensing Office, while there is no specific provision in the law for the inspection of the vehicle on such an occasion, it is obvious that in order to verify that the vehicle presented is the same as the one on the register, some examination or inspection must necessarily take place. It is not therefore in dispute that the taxi was inspected by Motor Vehicle Inspector Ezan Mohammed. Mohammed found nothing to cause him to refuse to register the transfer. There is, however, some dispute whether Mohammed expressly told the appellant that “the vehicle was in perfect condition physically and legally and was capable of lawful transfer” as deposed by the appellant. Be that as it may, the register was amended. Mohammed swore: -

“I checked the chassis number on the vehicle against the number written on the certified copy of ownership. I do recall that my inspection of the vehicle did not reveal any significant grounds for suspecting that the chassis number on the vehicle being inspected had been altered or tampered/interfered with.”

5 Some six (6) months later, on the 20th November 1996 the appellant returned to the Licensing Office, this time to have the vehicle inspected for the purpose of having it licensed for the year 1997. This inspection for public service vehicles, the category to which the taxi belonged, was required by regulation 27 of the Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Regulations Chap. 48:50. Regulation 27 so far as is relevant provides as follows: -

• “27(1) Every applicant for the grant or renewal of a licence in respect of a public service vehicle, rented car, goods vehicle, or trailer shall produce such vehicle to such Motor Vehicles Inspector as the Licensing Authority may direct for examination and shall, at the same time, furnish him with such information as may be required – including the following:

  • (a) the name of the manufacturer of the chassis;

  • (b) model

  • (c) engine number and number of cylinders;

  • (d) year manufactured;

  • (e) factory number of chassis;

  • (f) maximum gross weight in kilograms;

  • (g) type of body.

6 If the applicant is unable to furnish the information required the Motor Vehicles Inspector may describe such vehicle from his own observation.

7 …………

• (2) The Motor Vehicles Inspector shall examine such public service vehicle, rented car, goods vehicle or trailer, and if satisfied that it complies with the provisions of the Act and these Regulations and on payment of the prescribed fee, shall issue a certificate containing such particulars specified in the form in the Schedule, and no licence for such vehicle shall be issued or renewed unless the Motor Vehicles Inspector certifies that the vehicle complies with all the provisions of the Act and of these Regulations.

• (3) …….

• (4) …….

• (5) …….

• (6) Owners intending to renew their licences in respect of public service vehicles, rented cars, goods vehicles or trailers shall produce such vehicles to a Motor Vehicles Inspector for examination during such periods and at such times and places as shall be appointed by the Licensing Authority by notice published in the Gazette and in a daily newspaper circulating in Trinidad and Tobago.

• (7) If by 31st December the Motor Vehicles Inspector has not been able to examine any vehicle produced to him for examination, he shall extend the last certificate for such further period as he may consider necessary in order to enable an examination to be carried out and to enable a renewal of the licence to be granted. The renewal licence so issued shall be subject to modification in order to conform to the result of the subsequent examination of the vehicle. No public service vehicle or goods vehicle or trailer shall be used on the road unless the owner thereof has obtained a new certificate or an extension of his last certificate.”

8 As of the year 1997, no vehicle operating in Trinidad and Tobago was required to be licensed and accordingly while the requirement of inspection of public service vehicles remained, the licensing requirement was removed. This change was effected by an amendment to regulation 27 in the Finance Act, 1997 (Act 9 of 1997). There is nonetheless a clear prohibition against public service vehicles being used on the road unless the owner has obtained a new Motor Vehicle Inspector's certificate or an extension of the last certificate. Any such use would be a breach of the regulations attracting criminal prosecution – vide section 91(2).

9 Upon inspection of the vehicle on 20th November 1996, the Inspector, not Mr. Ezan Mohammed, discovered that the chassis number appeared to have been re-stamped. The Inspector observed that the chassis No. WPGE 23-003532 appeared to have been tampered or interfered...