PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad, (CMC) – The Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal of Belize and restored the decision of a lower court in a case concerning riparian rights in respect of land along the Belize River.

Riparian rights are the rights of waterfront property owners with regards to water, such as the right of access to the water.

The case involved a dispute over whether Arturo Matus, the owner of a parcel of land, 4105, had riparian rights despite a portion of another parcel of land, 5031, owned by New Deal Limited, lies between his property and the Belize River.

The Supreme Court had earlier ruled that Matus had no riparian rights because his land does not abut, (touch or lean on) or border, the river and dismissed his claim. However, the Court of Appeal overturned that decision, holding that Matus had riparian rights over the intervening strip of land owned by New Deal Limited and that the creation of Parcel 5031 was a mistake and ultra vires, and outside of the powers of the Registrar of Lands.

The Court of Appeal ordered rectification of the Land Register to amend the size of Parcel 5031, a permanent injunction, and payment of damages to Matus for trespass and breach of his constitutional rights.

In its judgment, the CCJ ruled that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Matus had riparian rights.

The CCJ, which is the country’s highest and final court, reaffirmed the principle that riparian rights are derived from ownership or lawful possession of land that abuts a natural watercourse and thereby, makes actual daily contact with the water.

It said that since Parcel 4105 did not meet this requirement, Matus could not claim riparian rights.

The CCJ also found no legal basis to declare that the creation and issue of Parcel 5031 were made by mistake.

It said that as Matus did not own the portion of Parcel 5031 that adjoins Parcel 4105 and had no riparian rights, the inclusion of that portion of land in Parcel 5031 was not a mistake warranting rectification of the Land Register.

Similarly, there was no legal basis for finding that the creation of Parcel 5031 and its transfer to New Deal were void or ultra vires, or for the award of damages for trespass and breach of constitutional rights.

Additionally, the CCJ observed that there was no basis for implying an easement of necessity through Parcel 5031 to allow Parcel 4105 access to the Belize River, since Parcel 4105 was accessible from a public road via other parcels of land that Matus owned.