Inside the decrepit Iec Long Firecracker Factory
The Court of Second Instance (TSI) concluded the analysis on the appeal submitted by the Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Predial Baía da Nossa Senhora da Esperança S.A. last week. The appeal was made to stop the legal order to vacate the land where the former Iec Long Firecracker Factory in Taipa is located.
The order issued by the Land, Public Works and Transport Bureau (DSSOPT) had been grounded on a previous decision from the Administrative Court (TA). The TA gave their support to the Chief Executive’s (CE) order, from April 24. According to that order a contract of land swap between the government and three companies (including the defendants) was cancelled. The reason for its cancellation was the legal impossibility of making such a contract in light of the investigations and report, made prior by the Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) in July 2016.
The company has decided to appeal after the TA’s decision and their case had been forwarded to the upper court (TSI). The aim of their appeal was to try to supersede the order from DSSOPT, which was imposing a 60-day period for the release of the land, to avoid immediate eviction.
According to the CE’s order, the DSSOPT had the duty to “take immediate action to keep unoccupied lands, which are its property, [specifically in this case] the area called Iec Long Firecracker Factory.” The company have contested this action, claiming that the process is still running and that this procedure would cause them to suffer financial losses.
Concerning claims that “the execution is likely to cause damage, which will be difficult to repair for the applicant” the TSI ruled that in the case of a later decision (that is favorable for the appellant), they, the company, “may request compensation for the losses suffered, even if it can not continue as owner of the concession of the land.”
The TSI ruling continued, “nor can it be said that it will be impossible to calculate the exact amount of profit losses, damages and any other losses which it may suffer,” reaffirming that “it is possible to establish criteria to determine the profitability of the construction and the profits that the entrepreneur would have if he could have completed the use of the land.”
No Comments