Shivanand Seenath v Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Mr. Justice Westmin R.A. James
• Judgment Date: 18 December 2024
• Neutral Citation: TT 2024 HC 324
• Docket Number: Claim No: CV 2022-02696

Between

Shivanand Seenath

Claimant

and

Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited

First Defendant

Heritage Petroleum Company Limited

Second Defendant

Before:

The Hon. Mr. Justice Westmin R.A. James

Claim No: CV 2022-02696

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Appearances:

Mr. Reagel Jonathan Jagroop and Ms. Laurissa Hosein, Attorneys-at-Law for the Claimant

Mr. Roger Kawalsingh and Ashley Roopchansingh, Attorneys-at-Law for the Defendants

1 This case examines whether Shivanand Seenath (the “Claimant”) is entitled to surface rights rental income from the Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago, (‘the First Defendant’) and/or Heritage Petroleum Company Ltd (‘the Second Defendant’).

Background

2 By Claim Form and Statement of Case filed on 20 ^th July 2022, the Claimant sought the following:

• i. An Order that the First Defendant do pay the Claimant the sum of $10,992,407.28 for outstanding rents owed at market value for the period 2019–2021;

• ii. An Order that the Second Defendant do pay the Claimant the sum of $2,444,318.10 for outstanding rents owed at market value for the period 2019 to 2021;

• iii. Interest at a rate of 6% on General Damages and 3% on Special Damages from the date of service of the Claim Form and Statement of Case to the date of judgment and 12% on General Damages, and 6% on Special Damages thereafter until payment of the judgment debt;

• iv. Costs and

• v. Such further and/or other relief as the Court may deem fit

3 The Claimant pleaded that he is the sole owner of his 2 parcels of land across which the 14″ and 10″ pipelines lie and that since 1991, payments of the rents to the “ then owner” of his 2 parcels of land ceased “ in breach of the verbal agreement between the then owner and BP.”

4 The Claimant contended that through his Attorneys-at-law, he held discussions and/or negotiations with both Defendants in respect of their settlement of the outstanding rents due and owing to him for the 14″ and 10″ pipelines which lie across his 2 parcels of land. The Claimant states by letter dated 12 ^th August 2015, the 1 ^st Defendant proposed to settle the outstanding rents due and owing calculated at the rate of $1,000.00 per acre or any part of the Claimant's 2 parcels of land on which the 14″ and 10″ pipelines lie. The Claimant found this proposal “ woefully inadequate” and “ totally unacceptable.” Thereafter, the Claimant received another proposal dated 5 ^th January, 2016 in which the 1 ^st Defendant proposed to settle the outstanding rents due and owing calculated for the period 1991 – 1995 at the rate of $0.05¢ per linear foot, for the period 1996 – 2005 at the rate of $0.50¢ per linear foot, and for the period 2006 – 2016 at the rate of $1.00 per linear foot, for the length of the 14″ pipeline and that part of the 10″ pipeline crossing the Claimant's 2 parcels of land. Again, the Claimant found this proposal “ unacceptable”.

5 In light of the failure to reach an Agreement with the 1 ^st and 2 ^nd Defendants, he commissioned a valuation from a “ certified valuator”. Pursuant to the Valuation Reports he received, the Claimant claims the sum of $10,922,407.28 from the 1 ^st Defendant for the period 1991 to 2018 as per the Valuation Report he obtained in respect of the sums due and owing from the 1 ^st Defendant. The sum of $2,444,318.10 from the 2 ^nd Defendant for the period 2019 to 2021 as per the Valuation Report he obtained in respect of the sums due and owing from the 2 ^nd Defendant, being outstanding rents due and owing for the portion of his 2 parcels of land across which the 14″ and 10″ pipelines lie, which portion comprises, pursuant to a survey conducted by the Claimant, 9,402.4m ² of the Claimant's 2 parcels of land.

6 By Defence filed on 23 ^rd September 2022, the Defendants denied the Claimant's entitlement to the rents claimed from them on the basis that the Claimant has no locus standi to institute his claim. The Defendants pleaded that the portion and/or strip of the Claimant's 2 parcels of land on which the 14″ and 10″ pipelines lie is not owned by the Claimant, but instead owned by Stollmeyer, his heirs and/or assigns – the Mine Owners.

7 Alternatively, the Defendants contended that the Claimant's claim is both time barred pursuant to the Pipelines Act, as any claim for compensation must be within 12 months of the laying of the pipeline, and statute barred pursuant to the Limitation of Certain Actions Act, Chapter 7:09 as any claim for rent, or for the unlawful use and occupation of the Claimant's 2 parcels of lands, ought to have been made within 4 years from the date when rent became due and/or the Defendants' use and occupation became “unlawful.”

8 In the further alternative, the Defendants averred that they have been in continuous, open, and undisputed occupation of the portion and/or strip of the Claimant's 2 parcels of land on which the 14″ and 10″ pipelines lie for a continuous period exceeding 16 years. A fortiori, any title which the Claimant has (which is denied) in the portion and/or strip of land on which the 14″ and 10″ pipelines lie has been extinguished in accordance with Real Property Limitation Act, Chapter 56:03.

9 The Defendants further contended that the 1 ^st Defendant's letter dated 12 ^th August 2015 issued to the Claimant was under the mistaken and erroneous belief that the Claimant owned the portion and/or strip of his 2 parcels of land on which the 14″ and 10″ pipelines lie. In any event, the Defendants also contend that such negotiations and correspondences, which include its letter dated 5 ^th January 2016 issued thereto, were without prejudice to their rights.

10 The Claimant filed a Reply on 15 ^th June 2023. The Claimant admits that pursuant to the 1943 Deed, Stollmeyer reserved unto himself the mines and minerals etc. in, upon or under Esperance Estate together with the powers, rights and liberties to be exercised by Stollmeyer, his heirs and assigns, i.e., the Mine Owners, and the servants, agents and licensees of the Mine Owners as contained in the 1943 Conveyance. However, the Claimant pleaded that Stollmeyer conveyed the surface lands of Esperance Estate to the Purchasers, their heirs and assigns with the right to receive compensation for occupation/use of the surface of Esperance Estate from any person or entity claiming through Stollmeyer, his heirs and/or assigns – the Mine Owners.

11 The Claimant further pleaded that by the 1972 Lease, the Mine Owners leased the mines and minerals etc. in, upon or under Esperance Estate together with the powers, rights and libertes to be exercised by them (Mine Owners) as contained in the 1943 Conveyance, “ subject to the payment of compensation to the surface owners as is specified in the said (1943) Deed”.

12 According to the Claimant, BP entered into an agreement with his father – Deokaran to pay rents to his father for the use and occupation of the “ surface lands where the (14″) Pipelines are located.” It is the case for the Claimant that although there was no written lease between BP and Deokaran, they (BP and Deokaran) agreed to a rental agreement as “ evinced by the various correspondence between BP and (Deokaran).” The Claimant further pleaded that pursuant to this Agreement, Tesoro paid rents to Deokaran “ for the use of the surface of that portion of the said Lands occupied by the (14″) Pipelines” as evidenced by the documents substantiating the said payments the Claimant was able to fnd.

13 The Claimant also denied the applicability of the Pipelines Act on the basis that the Pipelines Act deals with the laying of pipelines and in his case, the pipelines have already been laid. The Claimant also denies the applicability of the Real Property Limitation Act and the LCA Act on the basis that at all material times, the Defendants always recognized the Claimant as the owner of the portion and/or strip of the Claimant's 2 parcels of land on which the 14″ and 10″ pipelines lie and engaged in open talks and negotiations with the Claimant to settle the outstanding rents as claimed.

Issues

14 The Issues that are for the determination of this Court

• a. Whether the Defendants are liable to the Claimant for rents?

• b. If so whether the Claimant's claim is statute barred? and

• c. If not what is the quantum of damages?

Whether the Defendants are liable to the Claimant for rent?

15 The first issue to be determined is whether the Defendants are liable to the Claimant for rent. The Claimant is the owner of two parcels of land, through which the Defendants' 14″ and 10″ pipelines traverse, occupying 9,402.4 m ² of the Claimant's land. It is the Claimant's responsibility to establish the Defendants' liability for rent.

16 To resolve this, the Court must first assess the Claimant's rights to the rents being claimed, based on the evidence. This involves a detailed examination of the Deeds of Conveyance under which the Claimant acquired the property, to identify the rights they inherited.

17 By Deed of Conveyance dated 22 ^nd June, 1943 registered as No. 3850 of 1943 (‘1943 Conveyance’), Charles Conrad Stollmeyer as Vendor (Stollmeyer) conveyed to George Ethelbert Ramdin, Ramsamooj Maharaj, Syad Ibrahim and Bhagwansingh (Purchasers) ALL and SINGULAR five several parcels of land situate in the Ward of South Naparima West known as “Esperance Estate” estimated to comprise 232 acres more or less (Esperance Estate) which said 5 several parcels of land are more properly described in the Schedule thereto in fee simple as joint tenants. The conveyance explicitly stated that it was being conveyed:

EXCEPTING AND RESERVING unto to the Vendor in fee simple all mines and minerals in, upon or under the hereditaments hereby assured (which hereditaments are hereinafter referred to as “THE SAID LANDS”) together with the powers, rights and liberties to be exercised by the Vendor, his heirs and assigns (hereinafter called “THE MINE OWNERS”) and the...