LAND Court Judge Pricilla Chandra-Haniff dismissed Mohamed Kayum Hoosein’s petition to be granted a Declaration of Title for a property in West Mahaicony.

The property is said to be owned by the Alli siblings, who proved that they inherited the land from their parents.

The siblings; Zariena Alli, Mazum Alli Kudwah, Nasrat Alli, Faizul Alli, Rafeek Ally and Hassan Ali, were listed as the opposers on the court document.

According to the document seen by this newspaper, in September 2014, Hoosein filed the petition at the High Court, which outlined that he has been recognised as the absolute and sole owner of the land and has been occupying it since 2001.

Since his occupation of the land, he has cleared it of weeds and bushes, fenced it, and planted several coconut trees. In addition, Hoosein claimed he had been using the land to park his machines, hymac, bulldozers, tractors and other spares.

Hoosein even provided two sworn affidavits in support of his petition; however, the opposers filed notice saying that they are beneficiaries of the estate which belonged to Cecil Kudwah.

They alleged that Zariena Alli is the executrix of the estate of Cecil Kudwah who died on February 20, 2000, and was the owner of the piece of land for which Hoosein is claiming ownership.

The opposing affidavits also contended that the contents of Hoosein’s petition were false and that he knowingly and intentionally swore falsely to deceive the court.

The siblings had several sworn affidavits to prove their case against Hoosein’s petition.
In dismissing Hoosein’s petition, Justice Chandra-Haniff noted that the court accepts as a finding of fact, that the petitioner’s trespass on the disputed land commenced in 2014 and not 2001 as alleged. This is supported by the trespass action filed by the opposers against the petitioner in 2014.

The judge said that the testimonies of the siblings and their witnesses, were unshaken in cross-examination and they all maintained that Hoosein was not in occupation before 2014, and that there was no new fence; nor was there any machinery on the disputed property.

After hearing the petitioner’s evidence, the opposers’ evidence, the evidence of witnesses in support of the petition and opposition, the court found that the petitioner failed in making out his claim.
As such, the petition was accordingly dismissed .