Ashton v Leacock

• Jurisdiction: St Vincent and the Grenadines
• Judge: Mitchell, J
• Judgment Date: 25 September 2000
• Neutral Citation: VC 2000 HC 23
• Docket Number: Civil Suit No. 14 of 1999
• Court: High Court (Saint Vincent)
• Date: 25 September 2000

High Court

Mitchell, J.

Civil Suit No. 14 of 1999

Ashton

and

Leacock

Williams for the plaintiff

Colin Williams for the defendant

Real property - Landlord and tenant — Plaintiff sought damages for forcible eviction by landlord — Whether plaintiff had been a tenant or mere trespasser — Whether there was court order authorising use of force — Judgment for plaintiff — Quantum or general damages assessed a $5,000.00 — Special and exemplary damages — Costs.

Mitchell, J

1 This is a dispute between a landlord and a tenant arising out of the forcible eviction of the tenant by the landlord. Giving evidence for the plaintiff was his girlfriend, Catherine John. The plaintiff did not give evidence at the trial, as he has found work since last December in the island of Barbados and has been unable to return to testify. The defendant himself was in the USA and unable to be present to testify. His agent for the rental premises, Sharon Dougan, gave evidence.

2 The facts are not seriously in dispute. It appears that sometime in the year 1998 Dextron Ashton and her brother the plaintiff entered into an agreement with Sharon Dougan to rent the partially furnished two-bedroom house of the defendant at Evesham in St Vincent. The rent was $250.00 per month. The case for the defendant was that only Dextron Ashton and not the plaintiff was the tenant. The suggestion was that the plaintiff had been a mere trespasser. The rent receipts had been issued by the defendant's agent in Dextron Ashton's name alone. But, there was no denial that the premises were occupied without objection by the defendant from the start of the tenancy to its termination by the plaintiff. The evidence indicated that the defendant's agent had accepted throughout the tenancy that Dextron and her brother the plaintiff were to live in the premises. The witness for the defendant denied that the plaintiff had throughout the tenancy paid one half of the rent, but the plaintiff was an employed carpenter at the time and I am quite satisfied that he paid half the rent for the premises, and that the agent knew so. The plaintiff was no trespasser, but, equally with his sister, a tenant of the premises of the defendant. Sometime after the tenancy commenced, Catherine John, the girlfriend of the plaintiff, had moved into the house with the plaintiff and his sister Dextron Ashton. She brought their baby with her. There is no suggestion that this had been contrary to the rental agreement or that the sister Dextron Ashton had originally objected to her brother's girlfriend and child moving into the house. Not unusually in such cases, Dextron Ashton eventually became uncomfortable with the situation. On or about 22 December 1998 she left the premises and went to live elsewhere. It was only after Dextron Ashton had left the premises that the defendant through his agent objected to the plaintiff occupying the premises.

3 One day shortly after Dextron Ashton left the rented premises, on or about the 4 ^th January 1999, Kenute Leacock, the landlord and defendant in this case, came to the premises in question and asked the plaintiff and his girlfriend to leave by the 9 ^th, ie, in 5 days time. There had been no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant up to that date. No rent was in arrears, not had any covenant of the tenancy been broken by the plaintiff. No lawful notice to quit had been served on the plaintiff. No court order had been obtained. by the defendant ordering the plaintiff to vacate the premises and authorizing the bailiffs to break down the door and evict the plaintiff. The defendant through his witness had no explanation to give to the court for the summary verbal notice to quit or the action that he subsequently took. Sharon Dougan said in evidence that she had told the plaintiff and his girlfriend on a number of occasions after Dextron Ashton had left the premises that the defendant was coming back to St Vincent and wanted the premises to repair. That allegation was not put to the plaintiff's witness when she was being cross-examined, and in any event, even if true, was no justification for what the defendant subsequently did. In the event, the plaintiff and his girlfriend did not vacate the premises as a result of the summary notice of 4 ^th Januar...