Cyril Evans v Jennifer Abbott, Albert Plato and Shirley Layne Jones

• Jurisdiction: St Vincent and the Grenadines
• Judge: Byer, J.
• Judgment Date: 03 September 2018
• Neutral Citation: VC 2018 HC 55
• Docket Number: SVGHCV1992/0316
• Court: High Court (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines)
• Date: 03 September 2018

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Byer, J.

SVGHCV1992/0316

Between:

Cyril Evans

First Claimant

and

Jennifer Abbott

First Defendant

Albert Plato

Second Defendant

Shirley Layne Jones

Third Defendant

Mr. Stephen Williams with Ms. Sheena Williams for the claimant.

Mr. Carlyle Dougan Q.C. for the First defendant.

Mr. Joseph Delves for the Second and Third defendants.

Real Property - Title — Ownership — Deed — Whether deed ought to be recognized as giving proper title to subject land — Whether claimant entitled to possession of subject land

Byer, J.

1 This case was one of the unfortunate casualties of the inherent back log of cases within this jurisdiction. This claim was filed as a Writ of Summons in 1992, taking some 26 years to come to trial.

2 As a result, the parties in the proceedings and in particular the defendants were unavailable either through ill health, disappearance or senility.

3 The defendants were therefore put to a severe disadvantage in that they could not be called and minus any appropriate application with the requisite background information, the witness statements could not be relied on.

4 The matter therefore proceeded to trial on the Amended Statement of Claim and Defence, and Counterclaim filed by the parties and the paucity of evidence on both sides.

5 At the conclusion of the trial, it became clear to the Court that despite Counsel for the defendant's hesitation to agree to a survey plan being done to shed light as to whether in fact the claimants and defendants were claiming the same parcel of land, this Court made an order on the 28 ^th February 2018 for the Chief Surveyor, Mr. Keith Francis to conduct a survey of the land the subject matter of this action as contained in the deeds relied upon by both parties, namely 570 of 1981 for the claimant and 209 of 1992 by the defendants.

6 The Court had further ordered that the same was to be produced by the 13 ^th April 2018; it was not however received until July 2018 thus the late production of the decision in this matter.

7 By that report, Mr. Francis categorically stated that land stated in 209/1992 the deed of the defendants, forms part of the land contained in 570/1981 the claimant's Deed.

8 Therefore, in this Court's mind the issue of whether the claimant and defendants were claiming the same land has been laid to rest and this Court will therefore in this decision only address its mind to who is in fact the owner of this one parcel of land.

9 In order to get a sense of how this arises, it is imperative that some background be given to the genesis of this claim.

10 At this juncture, I need to make a comment in this regard. In light of the fact that this matter was of some vintage, it would have been useful to the Court to get some considerable assistance from Counsel on both sides. This was however lacking and the Court has had to rely on pleadings excruciatingly vague and the evidence of two witnesses relied on at trial.

11 Be that as it may, the claimant's case was simply this: in 1980, his uncle one James Constance agreed to give him a parcel of land at Calliaqua. Thus, by Deed Number 486 of 1981; the said James Constance registered a parcel of land measuring 3750 square feet in his name and then conveyed the same to the claimant by Deed of Gift Number 570 of 1981. The land was subject to the life interests of the said James Constance, his wife Iris and their daughter Estina who was given permission to keep a chattel house on the land.

12 James Constance died in 1986. The second defendant commenced a relationship with the said Estina and would live with her in the chattel house on the land. Estina passed away in January 1990. After the death of Estina, the said Iris having administered the Estate of her late husband James and in her capacity as Administratrix and beneficiary conveyed the parcel of land at Calliaqua to which she had been entitled under the will of her late husband.

13 This parcel of land described as 3200 square feet formed the subject matter of Deed Number 209 of 1992. It is this parcel of land that the surveyor Mr. Keith Francis has found, forms part of the parcel which had already been conveyed to the claimant in 1980.

14 The second defendant believing that he was in fact entitled to a separate and distinct parcel of land placed the first named defendant as tenant into the house that had belonged to Estina.

15 By 1992, the claimant had filed this claim seeking a declaration of ownership among other reliefs including damages for trespass.

16 During the currency of the proceedings the Second defendant, knowing full well that the proceedings were instituted sold the property to the third defendant, who then mortgaged the same to lending institutions who are not parties to the proceedings.

17 The claimant therefore has prayed of this Court a declaration that he is the fee simple owner of the property, recovery of possession, damages for trespass and payment of all monies owed to the...