The High Court had dismissed a lawsuit brought by the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) against the Attorney General, Mr. Dale Kennedy and the Regional Democratic Council (RDC) of Region No. 9, over the removal of the PNCR from a building in Lethem that had served as its regional headquarters for decades. The defendants contended that the property was State property and the PNCR was occupying the property without permission from the State, after being served with notices to vacate by the REO. In a judgment delivered on August 24, 2026, the Court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the PNCR had no legal right to remain on the property and that its removal did not amount to trespass or a violation of its constitutional rights.
The case arose after the PNCR was removed from the Lethem premises in March of 2023. The political party alleged that Regional Executive Officer Karl Singh and a contractor Dale Kennedy, accompanied by members of the Guyana Police Force, entered the building without permission, demolished parts of the structure, removed goods belonging to the party, and blocked its return. The PNCR sought declarations that its constitutional rights had been violated, along with damages for trespass and conversion of its property, and an injunction preventing the defendants from re-entering the premises.
The defendants argued that the building was State property under the control of the RDC, that the PNCR had only ever occupied it as a licensee, rather than an owner or tenant, and that the party had been repeatedly asked to leave before officials moved to reclaim the building.
After hearing evidence from witnesses on both sides, the Court found that the land and building belonged to the State and were vested in the RDC, noting that the PNCR could not produce any lease, title document, or other proof of ownership. The Court found that the party’s decades-long occupation began in the 1970s and that its presence there was best understood as permission granted by the State rather than a legal right to the property. The Court also found that the RDC had given the PNCR ample notice to vacate — starting in November 2021 and repeated several times before a final deadline in January 2023 — before officials acted in March 2023.
Because the PNCR’s right to occupy the building had already been lawfully withdrawn, the Court held that the entry and recovery of the premises did not constitute trespass. The judge similarly rejected the PNCR’s claims that its goods had been unlawfully converted, finding that the property removed from the building was inventoried and stored by the RDC and remained available for collection. The Court likewise found no violation of the PNCR’s constitutional rights or of international human rights protections, concluding that the government’s actions amounted to lawful enforcement of its property rights rather than discrimination or an unconstitutional taking.
As a result, the Court dismissed the PNCR’s claim in its entirety and ordered the PNCR to pay costs of $300,000 to the Attorney-General, the third-named defendant in the case. The PNCR was represented by Darren Wade and the Attorney General was represented by Mohabir Anil Nandlall SC MP, and Pierre Squires, State Counsel.