Primnath Geelal (Appellant) v The Chairman, Alderman, Councillors and Electors of the Region of San Juan/Laventille (Respondent) (Trinidad And Tobago)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2026/0049

Jurisdiction

Trinidad and Tobago

Parties

Appellant(s)

Primnath Geelal

Respondent(s)

The Chairman, Aldermen, Councillors and Electors of the Region of San Juan/Laventille

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in reversing the trial judge’s conclusions that the Respondents’ decision to proceed with enforcement action against the Appellant under sections 36, 46 and 47 of the Public Health Ordinance Chapter 12 No. 4, and section 163 of the Municipal Corporations Act, Chapter 25:04 were irrational, unfair and tainted by apparent bias?

Facts

This case arises from a challenge by judicial review of a decision of the Municipal Corporation (“the Corporation”) to take enforcement actions against the Appellant as a result of what the Corporation identified as recent unauthorised alterations to his property in San Juan. The Corporation issued a series of notices under section 36, 46 and 47 of the Public Health Ordinance, Chap. 12 No. 4 (“PHO”) and section 163 of the Municipal Corporations Act, Chap. 25:04 (“MCO”) on the basis that structural works had been carried out on the property without approval. Both provisions require notification before action is taken following an alleged planning violation; the onus is then placed on the building owner to show why the building or work should not be subject to enforcement action. Five “Show Cause Notices” were issued in this case, with a Notice issued on 14 December 2017 being the subject of challenge in the courts below and this appeal. The High Court judge ordered that the impugned decisions were all null and void and of no effect because the Corporation acted unlawfully, unreasonably, irrationally and in breach of the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness. The Corporation appealed these findings. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in relation to the Show Cause Notice on the basis that the trial judge erred in finding that any of the Notices were void on the grounds of unlawfulness or illegality. The Court of Appeal also ordered that the Appellant respond to the Show Cause Notice, and that an oral hearing is to be convened into all issues in conflict on or before 30 January 2026. The Court of Appeal upheld the Trial Judge’s decision to quash the Respondent’s decision to serve a Notice to Demolish on 6 December 2017.

Date of issue

16 June 2026

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top