Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v EDASCO Ltd (Trinidad and Tobago)

Where property is seized and detained by a constable under sections 25–27 of the State Lands Act, the statutory powers do not depend on charges having been laid, and dismissal of charges does not automatically end detention. For a vehicle, the conditions are reasonable cause to suspect unlawful removal of material from State land and the vehicle having, drawing or carrying that material. Section 27 gives the Magistrates’ Court jurisdiction over forfeiture, but does not remove the owner’s civil action in detinue. Lawful detention pending forfeiture is a complete defence, subject to continuing review of the statutory basis and purpose of detention. At the pleading stage, an arguable statutory justification is sufficient to prevent strike-out.

Edasco Ltd brought proceedings in detinue against the Attorney General to recover a dumper truck seized and detained by the police under section 26 of the State Lands Act. The truck was seized on 16 July 2019, charges were laid under section 25 on 30 September 2019, those charges were dismissed on 7 May 2021, and the truck was returned on 15 September 2021.

The High Court struck out the entire defence. The Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney General to defend the claim for the initial period but struck out the defence for the period after 30 September 2019. The appeal to the Board concerned whether the defence disclosed an arguable lawful basis for detention between 30 September 2019 and 7 May 2021, and whether section 27 provided the exclusive route for the owner to recover the truck.

The Board allowed the appeal in relation to the period from 30 September 2019 to 7 May 2021. The dispute was to return to a first-instance judge for determination.

1. Statutory powers. The powers under section 26 of the State Lands Act are discretionary and may be exercised without warrant before any charge is brought. For a vehicle, there must be reasonable cause to suspect that material was unlawfully dug, won or removed from State Lands, and the vehicle must have, draw or carry that material. There is no requirement to suspect that the vehicle’s owner was involved.
2. Continuing detention. Dismissal of criminal charges does not automatically terminate the power to detain. Detention may continue while reasonable cause for the statutory suspicion remains and the purpose of forfeiture is pursued. The relevant person must keep both matters under review, but need not investigate them periodically. If either basis positively ceases, the power ends and the property must be returned.
3. Forfeiture and civil proceedings. Property remains in the possession and control of the police, while the Magistrate exercises jurisdiction over forfeiture. An uncharged owner may apply under section 27, and a relevant person may also apply for forfeiture. That procedure does not exclude a civil claim in detinue, since clear words would be needed to remove that right. Ordinarily, however, lawful detention pending forfeiture proceedings is a complete defence to detinue, and the owner has no right to return until proving the statutory matters on the balance of probabilities.
4. Pleading. The Defence pleaded that the truck was lawfully detained under the State Lands Act, identified facts capable of establishing reasonable suspicion, and stated that detention continued pending the Magistrate’s forfeiture decision. The erroneous plea that the Magistrates’ Court possessed the truck did not invalidate that alternative case. No particulars of the owner’s involvement or of the continuing purpose of forfeiture were required. The Defence therefore disclosed an arguable complete defence and should not have been struck out.

1. Privy Council — In [2025] UKPC 23, the Board held that the defence disclosed an arguable statutory justification for detention during the second period and remitted the dispute to a first-instance judge.
2. Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago — Allowed the appeal concerning the initial period up to 30 September 2019, but struck out the defence for the subsequent period and entered judgment for damages to be assessed.
3. High Court — Struck out the defence for the entire period of detention and permitted Edasco Ltd to enter judgment for the relief claimed.