The Grand Court has denied a petition which claimed the Roads Law is incompatible with several sections of the Cayman Islands Constitution.
The legal challenge was originally brought in Sept. 2019 by Crosby Collymore Ebanks, Wilson Jonathan Mendoza and Mario Alberto Gomez, who each separately own land off Lisa Lane, West Bay.
The men petitioned the courts after the National Roads Authority gazetted 0.09, 0.11 and 0.10 acres of their lands respectively, for the construction of a new road.
The petition named the Governor, the NRA and the Attorney General as respondents.
In their petition, the men claimed the Roads Law (2005 Revision) was incompatible with the constitution because it failed to give them a means to appeal, before the courts, the NRA’s decision to take possession of their land by compulsorily acquisition.
They specifically pointed to sections 7 and 15 of the Constitution, which deal with the right to a fair trial and the right to enjoy property, respectively.
According to the judgment, which was handed down on 4 Oct., the petitioners sought a declaration that the “Roads Act does not conform with the Petitioners’ rights and freedoms under the [Bill of Rights] because it does not secure for the Petitioners a right of access to the Grand Court, whether direct or on appeal from any other authority, for the determination of the legality of the taking of their land”.
The petitioners also asked the courts for an injunction to stop the NRA from constructing the road until a decision was returned. That injunction was granted.
In her written judgment, Justice Cheryll Richards said she had carefully considered the points raised and was driven to dismiss the petition.
“The Roads Act is not incompatible with the right of the Petitioners to peaceful enjoyment of property as provided by s.15 of the [Bill of Rights] in that the right of access to the Grand Court is provided by other means,” reads the judgment.
It goes on, “The right of the Petitioners to a fair trail as provided by s. 7 of the BoR has not been infringed by failing to permit them a right of access to the Grand Court whether direct or on appeal from any other authority for the determination of the legality of the taking of possession of the Petitioners’ lands.”
Mendoza told the Compass: “We feel like we have not gotten anywhere with this petition, because we can either appeal the Court’s decision through the appeals court, or take a different route and challenge the NRA’s decision by way of judicial review, but God knows how long either way will take,” said Mendoza.
“We are definitely going to appeal the one of those decisions, but for now we just feel like we are back at square one,” he said.
Related Videos
