Eric Fenton Ollivierre v Wynston Shabazz and Wynston Ollivierre

• Jurisdiction: St Vincent and the Grenadines
• Judge: THOM, J
• Judgment Date: 11 February 2011
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2011] ECSC J0211-3
• Docket Number: HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 258 OF 2009
• Court: High Court (Saint Vincent)
• Date: 11 February 2011

[2011] ECSC J0211-3

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 258 OF 2009

Between:

Eric Fenton Ollivierre

Claimant

and

Wynston Shabazz O/C

First Defendant

Wynston Ollivierre

Attorney on record for Arnhim Benson Ollivierre Administrator in the Estate of Claude Ollivierre, deceased.

Arnhim Benson Ollivierre

Second Defendant

THOM, J

1 Claude Benson Ollivierre died interstate on the 3^rd of April 1994, He left surviving him several children including the Claimant and the Second Defendant.

2 On the 16^th day of November 2005 a grant of letters of Administration in his estate was made to the Defendant Wynston Shabazz attorney on record for Arnhim Benson Ollivierre.

3 On August 7, 2009 the Claimant filed this Fixed Date Claim in which he claimed that he is a beneficiary in the estate of Claude Ollivierre. The Claimant sought the following reliefs:

• (a) An order for revocation of Grant number 164 of 2005 granted to Wynston Shabazz o/c Wynston Ollivierre attorney on record for Arnhim Benson Ollivierre of Paget Farm Bequia.

• (b) An order for the Defendant to bring in the Grant.

• (c) A declaration that the Defendant are not entitled to destroy the building or land situated at Paget Farm in the State of Saint Vincent and containing three (3) lots more or less and abutted and bounded on the North by lands of Nanton G. Ollivierre and on the West by a six (6) foot right of way or howsoever otherwise the same may be butted distinguished or described TOGETHER with all buildings and erections ways, watercourses rights lights liberties privileges and easements thereto belonging or usually held used occupied or enjoyed therewith or reputed to belong or be appurtenant thereto which forms part of the estate of Claude Ollivierre deceased.

• (d) An injunction restraining the Defendant whether by himself therein after his servants and/or agents from trespassing and or destroying or continuing to destroy the buildings or lands situate at Paget Farm in the State of Saint Vincent and containing three (3) lots more or less.

• (e) In the alternative an order that the following six children of the deceased whom the Defendant left out of the Administrator's Oath as beneficiaries entitled to the estate of the deceased are in fact entitled equally with the other children of the said deceased: Sigbert Ollivierre, Claude Ollivierre, Doreen Gregg, Doreen Ollivierre, Francis Ollivierre and Hobin Kydd.

4 On the 4^th December 2009 the Defendant filed a defence and counterclaim,

5 On the 9^th February 2009 the Claimant filed a reply and defence to the counterclaim,

6 On the 12^th March 2010 the Defendant filed an application to strike out the statement of claim and he also sought summary judgment on the counterclaim on the grounds that the statement of case if frivolous and vexatious and an abuse to process, and the defence to the counterclaim is not in conformity with Part 10.5 of CPR 2000.

SUBMISSIONS

7 Learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Claimant's statement of case is frivolous and vexatious and abuse of the process of the Court since:

• (a) the same issues were litigated in Claims No. 131 of 2007 and No. 3 of 2008 and both claims were dismissed. The Claimants are therefore estopped from making their claims. Learned Counsel referred to numerous cases including the case ofAttorney-General v Barker [20001 1 FLR 759.

• (b) the Claimant has no locus standi to bring the Claim to claim reliefs for persons not party to the Claim. Learned Counsel referred the Court to the case ofDeloitte Touche AG v Christopher D Johnson and Another No 44 of 1998.

• (c) the Claimant has not produced sufficient evidence to prove paternity as required by the Status of the Children Act. Learned Counsel referred the Court to the case ofDavid Sampson v David McKenzie.

• (d) the defence to the counterclaim does not disclose a defence with a real prospect of success. The Defence is not in compliance with Part 10.5 of CPR 2000 in that it amounts to bare denials.

8 Learned Counsel for the Claimant submitted that:

• (a) the Defendants are estopped from seeking to have the Claim struck out since they filed a defence to the Claim and further they...