Rtc News has just received the following from the PNP Chairman following the AGs Press release. And the letter read and I quote:
A press release issued on behalf of the Attorney General about the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling on the Progressive National Party (PNP) headquarters is misleading to the point of dishonesty and can only be intended to cover up this almost criminal waste of Turks and Caicos Islands tax payers’ money.
The PNP has never claimed title to the land, but rather only to be allowed to purchase it for a reasonable amount and to pay a reasonable rent for the time the Party has occupied the land since building its headquarters there.
Ownership of the land was never in issue and for the Attorney General to spend thousands of tax payer dollars for the Court to tell him what everyone knew and accepted was wasteful.
The court proceedings were brought by the Attorney General to evict the PNP and take possession of the building, but that claim was dismissed by the court, which stated:
“As the PNP is not a legal entity the claim against it must be dismissed. For the reasons I have given, Mr Cooke cannot represent the members of the PNP in the action for the trespass as it cannot be said that all the members of the PNP have the same defence. The claim against Mr Cooke personally in respect of the trespass to the land is dismissed, there being no evidence before the court that he is or has been a trespasser.
As action to recover possession can only be taken against the persons, real or legal, who are in possession of the property and the PNP is not a person. No evidence has been led as to who is in actual possession of the premises. Insofar as the as the Plaintiff (AG) purports to proceed against Mr Cooke personally to recover possession of the land, that claim too is dismissed, there being no evidence that he is in possession of the land or any part of it.”
The Attorney General also claimed to be entitled to repayment of the sum of $480,000.00 in rents paid to a private management company for MPs constituency offices located in the building. That claim was abandoned midway through the trial.
The Attorney General further claimed an order to be permitted to demolish the building. That claim was abandoned at the commencement of the trial. It would have amounted to nothing more than court sanctioned vandalism.
The Attorney General was told, before he issued these proceedings that he could not sue the PNP because it is not a legal person. It was for this reason that his case for possession against the PNP was dismissed.
The Attorney General was told that naming Trevor Cooke as a defendant on the basis that he is the Chairman of the PNP did not help his cause. In the end the case against Trevor Cooke was dismissed.
It is true that the Court rejected the es-top-pel defences raised on behalf of the PNP. However these were defences, not claims. The distinction is important: a claim is a request of the court to allow some positive action, whilst a defence is a request to deny that action. In this case the Court denied the Attorney General’s claim to evict the PNP though not on the basis of the es-top-pels raised on behalf of the PNP but on the basis that the PNP cannot be sued because it is not a legal person. That is a principle that is taught in first year law school!
So after all is said and done the Attorney General has paid the Civil Recovery Team in excess of $250,000.00 to get no further than where he was before the proceedings were commenced and for the Court to tell him what we all knew and accepted from the beginning. It’s no wonder he’s looking forward to negotiating an amicable resolution.
An amicable resolution is what the PNP has been asking for from the very beginning, however the Attorney General was hell-bent on litigation, designed to have what was not his. Contrary to free advice, he went about it in the wrong way and the Court has now dismissed his claims. At the costs submissions hearing next Friday 19 July the PNP and Trevor Cooke will be seeking costs orders against him.
Trevor Cooke
Chairman
Progressive National Party
