Warrenville United Table Tennis Club v Heeradaye Gainpaulsingh

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Mohammed, J.
• Judgment Date: 23 September 2025
• Neutral Citation: TT 2025 HC 288
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CV2019-02544

Warrenville United Table Tennis Club

and

Heeradaye Gainpaulsingh

Mohammed, J.

Suit No.: CV2019-02544

High Court

Appearances:

Mr. Darryl Heeralal, instructed by Mr. Umesh D. Maharaj, Attorneys at Law for the Claimant.

Mr. Dinanath Ramkissoon, instructed by Mr. Toolsie Ramdin, Attorneys at Law for the Defendant.

Mohammed, J.

1 The Claimant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act with its registered office situated at No. 6 Warren Munroe Road, Warrenville. The Defendant is the neighbour of the Claimant and resides on the northern side of the Claimant's building (“the Claimant's building”), which is situated at its registered office. The Claimant has brought the instant action seeking the following orders:

• (a) A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to the use and enjoyment of a right of way over a strip of land (“the said right of way”) immediately west of No. 6 Warren Munroe Road, Warrenville, approximately 13 feet wide and 100 feet long located on state lands and back over the said right of way for itself its servants and/or licensees whether on foot and/or with motor vehicles.

• (b) A declaration that the Defendant is not entitled to possession of the said right of way.

• (c) An injunction restraining the Defendant whether by herself, her servants and/or agents or howsoever otherwise from fencing off, damaging, destroying, placing or allowing to be placed on the said right of way anything substantially restricting, preventing or otherwise interfering with the use and enjoyment of the said right of way by the Claimant, its servants and/or licensees whether on foot and/or with motor vehicles.

• (d) An order that the Defendant, whether by herself, her servants and/or agents, break and remove all structures constructed and/or being constructed on the said right of way, inclusive of the gateway at the entrance to the said right of way and the western side fence.

• (e) An injunction restraining the Defendant, whether by herself, her servants and/or agents, from using obscene language, assaulting, harassing, threatening, molesting or otherwise interfering with the Claimant, its servants and or licensees.

• (f) Costs.

• (g) Damages.

• (h) Aggravated damages.

• (i) Such further and/or other reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances of this case.

2 The Claimant contended that it and its predecessors, for more than 40 years since in or about 1978, have enjoyed without interruption, the use of the said right of way. According to the Claimant's case, the Defendant was at all material times its neighbour and resided on the northern side of the Claimant's building and that both parties are occupying State Lands. The Claimant asserted that sometime in 2005, the Defendant paved the said right of way and has restricted access to it by erecting a gate at the entrance, which is only opened at the Defendant's discretion and that she has fenced the western boundary. The Claimant also asserted that the Defendant put up a fence on the southern boundary of the lands she occupies and erected a gate on the northern end of the said right of way, separating it from the land she occupies.

3 In or around May 2018, the Defendant erected a wall alongside the eastern side of the said right of way, blocking the Claimant's access to the western entrance of the Claimant's building. The Claimant subsequently broke down the wall to restore access to the Claimant's building, and as a result of its actions, there is a matter before the Chaguanas Magistrate's Court.

4 The Claimant asserted that the only means of moving equipment to and from the Claimant's building is via the said right of way, as the southern entrance is limited to pedestrian traffic only. The Claimant also asserted that on the occasions when its members have attempted to access the said right of way, the Defendant has threatened them with physical violence, and as a result of these threats, they have stopped using the said right of way.

5 On 23 May 2019, the Claimant served a Pre-Action Protocol Letter threatening injunctive proceedings against the Defendant. Shortly thereafter, on 24 June 2019, the Claimant filed the instant action together with a notice application for interim relief.

6 On 20 August 2019 (“the Injunction Order”) the Defendant failed to appear in court and in her absence, the Claimant obtained an order: restraining the Defendant, her servants and or agents from damaging, destroying, fencing off, placing or allowing to be placed on the right of way anything substantially restricting, preventing or otherwise interfering with the use and enjoyment by the Claimant, its servants and/or licensees on foot and/or with motor vehicles; restraining the Defendant from using obscene language, assaulting, harassing, threatening, molesting or otherwise interfering with the Claimant, its servants and/or licensees; and that the Defendant to pay the Claimant's cost of the application assessed in the sum of $9,000.00.

THE DEFENCE

7 The Defendant opposed the orders being sought by the Claimant. She asserted that her father was a sugarcane worker with Caroni Limited who used a parcel of land, which was once the Trinidad Government Railway Reserve, to get to and from work in the nearby sugar cane fields since 1949. Subsequently, the Defendant's siblings began to use this piece of land as the roadway to their home. In or about 1979, Mr. Kamalodeen Ali (“Mr. Ali”) had a discussion with the Defendant's father seeking permission to use a portion of the said parcel of land to erect a building to carry out community activities amongst the youth and other members of the community. The Defendant's father acceded to Mr. Ali's request and shifted the roadway, which he had been using since 1949, further west so that Mr. Ali could erect the building for community purposes. The new pathway which the Defendant's father and his children began to use in order to access their home was a dirt track with no foundation which was developed by the Defendant's father, the Defendant and her siblings by depositing rejected old bricks from the brick factory, boulders, pieces of concrete, gravel, diamond shaped gravel over the dirt and grass to make it solid and firm. The Defendant, her father and siblings continued to use the said right of way with a bull cart, on foot and later from 1984 with vehicles. The Defendant continued to maintain the said right of way by surfacing it with pitron. The Defendant asserted that neither the Claimant's predecessor nor Mr. Ali nor the Claimant contributed to the development of the right of way.

8 The Defendant also asserted that there are three alternative safe means of access to the Claimant's building, namely from the southern entrance; to the east of the Claimant's building where the Claimant used in the past to load and off-load items; and on the west where the Claimant also used to load and off-load items into the Claimant's building. The Defendant contended that the Claimant's members and...