HEIRS OF AVRIL AFRICAIN

SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO. 718 OF 1997 BETWEEN: HEIRS OF AVRIL AFRICAIN aka JEAN BAPTISTE JOSEPH and Heirs of JN BAPTISTE JOSEPH aka BENOIT, represented by L.P.R. BENEDICT JOSEPH and Heirs of JN BAPTISTE JOSEPH aka ANTOINE, represented by L.P.R. (1) John Joseph and (2) Stanislaus Joseph Plaintiffs and (1) Estate of the late ADRIENNE FELICIEN represented by Antonius Ralph Felicien, Executor (2) Estate of MEDAS FELICIEN aka JOSEPH FELICIEN, represented by Marie Felicien (nee Louise), Administratrix (3) Estate of the late EMMANUEL FELICIEN, represented by Thomas Walcott, Executor (4) The Heirs and Estate of the late EDWARD FELICIEN aka Sylvester Felicien (5) The Estate of the late MARY FELICIEN, represented by (1) Andrew Felicien, (2) John Baptiste Felicien, Administrators (6) ARNOLD FELICIEN, represented by Joseph Felicien and Jennifer Brutus, Administrators (7) The Estate of the late LAWRENCE FELICIEN, represented by S. Headley Felicien, Administrator (8) SAMUEL FELICIEN in Gros Islet (9) Estate of MARIE AMBROSE (nee Felicien), represented by Simon Ambrose, Administrator (10) Heirs ANNE MARIE MODESTE (nee Felicien) (11) BERNADETTE SYLVESTER, represented by Augustin Sylvester and Marie Pascal, Administrators (12) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Legal Representative of Registrar of Lands) Defendants Appearances: Mr. Kenneth A.H. Foster, Q.C. for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Dexter V.O. Theodore for the Nos. 1,4,5,6,10 and 11 Defendants. Mr. Winston Hinkson for Nos. 7 and 8 Defendants. Mr. Alvin St. Clair for Nos. 3 and 9 Defendants. No. 12 Defendant not represented and absent. ------------------------------------------------------- 2000: September 04 05, 06, 07, 08 December 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAND DISPUTE…ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED: WHETHER THERE WERE TWO AVRIL AFRICAINS…WHETHER JEAN BAPTISTE JOSEPH WAS KNOWN AS AVRIL AFRICAIN…ARTICLE 2112 OF THE CIVIL CODE JUDGMENT

[1]HARIPRASHAD-CHARLES J: On 15th day of December 2000, I gave Judgment in f avour o f t he D efendants an d i ndicated t hat t he r easons t herefor w ould b e reduced into a written judgment subsequently. I do so now.

[2]Although the evidence was voluminous and the exhibits were in excess of one hundred, the issue to be decided is relatively simple and is essentially whether Jean Baptiste Joseph is the Avril Africain who owned the land in dispute? THE PLAINTIFFS’ PLEADED CASE

[3]The P laintiffs’ pleaded case is t hat t hey are t he heirs of t he E state of the late Joseph Avril Africain also commonly called Jean Baptiste Joseph of Tivoli, Quarter of Gros Islet which Estate was wrongfully registered and recorded at the instance of t he D efendants ei ther by m istake or fraud i n t he names of t he f irst eleven Defendants.

[4]The N o. 12 D efendant, the A ttorney G eneral i s j oined as a D efendant as t he Statutory Le gal R epresentative f or l egal pr ocess i n m atters on b ehalf of t he Registrar of Lands.

[5]At paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs allege that they discovered the mistake or fraud on or about the month of March 1997 when their attention was dr awn t o a n er roneous ent ry i n t he Land R egister, w hich w as w rongfully opened in the names of the Defendants.

[6]At paragraph 4(iii) of the said Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs allege, inter alia that the Feliciens referred to in the Court Order are probably the children of the late Elizabeth Avril and the late Nemorin Felicien.

[7]The Plaintiffs further allege, at paragraph 4(v) that the Defendants falsely claimed to be the children of Nemorin Felicien and Labrune Felicien whereby the Plaintiffs, by this unlawful act were excluded as the lawful heirs of Avril Africain.

THE DEFENDANTS’ PLEADED CASE

[8]In a nutshell, the Defendants’ pleaded case is that the Plaintiffs [or any of their heirs] are not the lawful heirs of the late Avril Africain. The Defendants contend that they are the lawful heirs of Avril Africain who died on 9th day of October 1917.

[9]At paragraph 4 of the Defence filed on 5 th day of August 1998, the Defendants admit that the Land Register was rectified on 21st day of March 1995 by Order of the Register of Lands pursuant to the Order of the High Court dated 12th day of May 1976 and registered in the Registry of Deeds and Mortgages on 24th day of May 197 6 i n V olume 12 9a N o. 112 616 bu t t hey deny t hat t he s aid entry w as wrongfully obtained.

[10]At paragraph (4) (c) of the aforesaid Defence, the Defendants state that they are not aware of the existence of any person, known or called by the name of JOSEPH AVRIL AFRICAIN. In this regard, they allege that they are the lawful Descendants of the late ELIZABETH AVRIL also known as LABRUNE FELICIEN or ELIZABETH FELICIEN who married RAPHAEL FELICIEN ALEXANDRE ST. MARTIN also known as NEMORIN FELICIEN on 14 th day of April 1896. The said ELIZABETH AVRIL was a l egitimate daughter of ANTOINE AFRICAIN also k nown as AVRIL AFRICAIN and JULIETTE RICHARD also known as JULIETTE RICHARD AFRICAIN or MADAME AVRIL AFRICAIN.

THE PLAINTIFFS’ CASE

[11]Learned Queen’s Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Mr. Kenneth Foster commenced his arguments by posing the question: who is the real Avril Africain? He submitted that there were two Avril Africains and that their Avril Africain is the real Avril Africain and the true owner of the land in dispute.

[12]I paus e t o r emark t hat t his s ubmission w as t otally i n v iolation of t he r ules of pleading in the High Court since it was not specifically pleaded. Be that as it may, the Plaintiffs continued their argument that their Avril Africain owned the land in dispute an d had f orever o ccupied t he di sputed l and w hich i s N orth of R avine Colombien whereas the Defendants’ Avril Africain occupied three carres of lands South and South-west of the said Ravine Colombien.

[13]Learned Queen’s Counsel argued that the Plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the real Avril Africain by virtue of the Deed of Sale by Gaston de Brettes in 1880. T he Plaintiffs c ontended t hat i n f urtherance of t he ow nership of t hat document, t he l ands h ave f rom t ime i mmemorial f rom 1891 up to 1993 bee n possessed and were occupied by the Plaintiffs.

[14]Learned Counsel argued quite vociferously that how could the Defendants now say that the Deed of Sale of 1880 is theirs when in Civil Suit No. 225 of 1975, [Exhibit DM 78] they deposed that they did not have any title deeds or receipts and sought t o c laim t he l and i n di spute by prescription. According t o C ounsel, t he documents of St. George Murray is pellucid and he urged the Court to apply the contra preferendum rule.

[15]The Plaintiffs a lso ar gued that the D eed of S ale of 1929 [ Exhibit D M 4 1] w as wrongly made because at the time of its making, the land was not so demarcated and the boundaries were non- existent.

[16]In attempting to show that the Plaintiffs are the lawful heirs of the Avril Africain who owned the land in dispute, two witnesses testified on behalf of the Plaintiffs namely Lucius Joseph and his mother Benedicte Joseph also known as Celina. L ucius Joseph testified as follows: “ The late Jean Baptiste Joseph is my grandfather. There is another Jean Baptiste Joseph who is my great grandfather. He was also called A vril Joseph. He was also called Avril Africain. According to records, he was married at Cap Estate whilst residing there. He had six [6] children born to him and h is w ife on T ivoli Lan ds an d he died at G ros I slet. B enedicte Joseph a ged 73, i s a c hild of his s on….In 1891, Avril Africain also called Jean Baptiste Joseph Africain married Marie Madeleine Prosper [Exhibit LJ 2] [my emphasis]. They had lived together in family house o n the same T ivoli Lands. T hey had J ean B aptiste Joseph also known as Benoit also known as Bernard. They lived and died on the said Tivoli Lands. They had lots of other children…”

[17]In his testimony on t his as pect of t he case, the w itness produced the bi rth certificates of the children of Jean Baptiste Joseph and Marie Madeleine Prosper also called Therese Prosper and the marriage certificate of Jean Baptiste Joseph. In that marriage certificate, the name of the father is recorded as Jean Baptiste Joseph Africain.

[18]Lucius Joseph continued his evidence: “My gr eat grandfather died on 12 th day of N ovember 19 35 [Exhibit L J 9]…On or about 14th day of January 1929, Juliette Richard Africain, widow of Avril Africain sold her half share…In 1929, my Avril Africain was alive because he died in 1935.”

[19]Under i ntense c ross-examination by l eading C ounsel f or t he D efendants, M r. Dexter Theodore, the witness said: “I hav e hear d t he name J uliette R ichard A fricain but I don’ t k now t he person. I do not know who Juliette Richard Africain is. According to the record, s he i s the w ife of Avril A fricain. I do n ot k now J uliette R ichard Africain personally but I recognize her as the wife of Avril Africain. Avril Africain was a c ommon name. Only on t he marriage certificate of Jean Baptiste Joseph was the name Avril Africain. There is no such document where J ean B aptiste J oseph i s r eferred t o as A vril A fricain but o n t he marriage certificate of Jean Baptiste Joseph, it is written the lawful son of Jean B aptiste J oseph A fricain and w itness t o t he m arriage w as B enoit Joseph; the brother of the bridegroom showing that he was the lawful son of Jean Baptiste Joseph also known as Africain. The Marriage Certificate is the document which states so. The Birth Certificate of the children of Jean Baptiste Joseph has Avril Joseph. There is no document of Jean Baptiste Joseph where he is called Avril Africain. We cannot find Avril Africain on his Marriage Certificate or on his children’s Birth Certificate. There are two Avril Africains owning lands on Tivoli Estate and I am claiming as one of the Africains” [my emphasis].

[20]A common thread running through the evidence of Lucius Joseph, the principal witness for the Plaintiffs was that there were two Avril Africains. This was explicit when on further cross-examination he stated: “On the Partition Plan GI 172 made by John Quinlan in 1893, when he surveyed the 6 carres of land in conjunction with the other 6.5 carres, he did that at the instance of our Avril Africain. Present at this survey were DeFerdinand. Also present were Gaston La Brette (owner of those lands) and another Avril A fricain w as pr esent at the s urvey. A ccording t o the report of Mr. Quinlan, that another Avril Africain was West of the Survey. In P lan G I 1 72, J ohn Q uinlan m entioned an other A fricain…my whole case is based on the fact of two Avril Africains” [my emphasis].

[21]In my opinion, the evidence of Benedicte Joseph, the other witness and mother to the principal witness did not assist the Court in any material way in determining the crucial issue in this matter.

[22]It is also significant to note that the Plaintiffs, in their written skeletal submissions stated that they make no claim to 6 carres of land which they state is located to the North of the Plaintiffs’ lands which measures 28 ac res 3 r oods 34 p erches or 9 carres as appears by P lan of Survey GI 137 ( Block 1457B) s urveyed by John Quinlan.

[23]In closing, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs urged the Court to accept what St. George Murray said that there were no deeds or receipts pertaining to the land in dispute. Counsel added that the 1929 Deed compounded the wrongness that was part of the fraud committed by the Defendants. He concluded that the main thrust of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that there were two Avril Africains and it is their Avril Africain who owned the land in dispute.

THE DEFENDANTS’ CASE

[24]Leading C ounsel f or the D efendants, M r. D exter T heodore, i n his us ual comprehensive s tyle pr ovided t o t he C ourt a f amily t ree an d det ailed w ritten submissions supported by the relevant exhibit.

[25]In chronological order, Learned Counsel laboriously traced the family tree of the Defendants juxtaposed with that of the Plaintiffs. He also traced the history of the Tivoli Lands (subject matter of this dispute).

[26]According to Counsel, the crucial issue to be determined is whether Jean Baptiste Joseph is the Avril Africain who owned the land in dispute. He submitted that Jean Baptiste Joseph was never referred to in any document as Avril Africain.

[27]Counsel further submitted that at turn of the last century, there was an obviously hard w orking an d am bitious m an c alled A ntoine A vril A fricain. A part from hi s Marriage Certificate in which he is called Antoine he is consistently referred to as Avril Africain in all civil status records, deeds, plans and reports of the time. He married J uliette R ichard of C ap E state, d aughter of Richard A fricain and D elia Africain on 10th day of May 1870 as is evidenced by Marriage Certificate- [Exhibit DM 4].

[28]On 13th day of September 1873, [Exhibit DM 1] Avril Africain and Juliette Richard, both of Cap Estate had a daughter whom they baptized Elizabeth.

[29]Avril Africain, according to Learned Counsel was never described anywhere as a fisherman but frequently as a landowner.

[30]Learned C ounsel s ubmitted t hat E lizabeth [ also k nown as La brune] A fricain married Nemorin Felicien and they lived on the land in dispute with their children, most of the Defendants, who were born and raised at Tivoli where they cultivated day of April 1880 and gardens and grazed animals. B y Deed of Sale dated 10th registered in Vol. 41 No.12632, Avril Africain purchased a portion of land of six [6] carres of the Tivoli Estate situate in the Parish of Gros Islet, the said portion of land bounded to the North by Cap Estate, to the South by Beausejour, to the East by Esperance and to the West by the lands called Cardinal [Exhibit DM 9]. Avril Africain also purchased a f urther 6.5 carres in 1893 as is evidenced by Survey Plan G I 17 2 a nd i ts accompanying r eport [ Exhibits D M 12 an d D M 13 respectively]. According to Counsel, there is no Deed of Sale relating to this sale; the only information about it is contained in the Report to GI 172 which established that the Avril Africain who owned the 6- carres of land was the same Avril Africain who in 1893 was acquiring the 6.5 carres of land.

[31]On 24 th day of January 1894 S urveyor John Q uinlan dismembered 28 acres 3 roods and 34 perches from the adjoining Beausejour Estate at the instance of Avril Africain [Exhibit DM 16]. This plan shows Ti Voli and Cap Estate [owned by Avril Africain to the West and North respectively]. Of significance, the report of Quinlan explained that the survey was in contemplation of a purchase by Avril Africain from a Mr. Houry and Avril Africain was present during the survey.

[32]According to Counsel, on a neighbouring estate at Tivoli owned by Leonard Marie and his wife, Turina Marie also known as “Ma Saman” lived Jean Baptiste Joseph and his wife, Marie Madeleine Prosper. They were fishermen and not landowners. Jean B aptiste J oseph m arried M arie M adeleine Prosper on 1 0th day o f M arch 1891.

[33]Avril Africain died on 9th day of October 1917 at the age of 89 [Exhibit DM 40]. On day of January 1929 (after his death) his widow, Juliette Richard Africain sold 14th her c ommunity one -half s hare of t he 6 -carre T ivoli pl ot t o her gr andchildren, Edward Felicien (Eddie) and Bernadette Felicien also known as Dame Villeneuve Sylvestre an d her hus band V illeneuve S ylvestre [ Exhibit D M 41] . C ounsel submitted that this sale is critically important because it identifies the Avril Africain who was the owner of the 6-carre plot and by extension, the 6.5 carre portion. The simple derivative is: the Avril A fricain who o wned the 6 -carre plot (and t he 6.5 carre por tion) w as t he o ne w ho m arried J uliette R ichard a nd w ho died before 1929. Learned Counsel submitted “ this has been conclusively proved beyond a shadow of a doubt t o have be en A vril A fricain and not Avril J oseph ( or J ean Baptiste Joseph as he is also called) who died in 1935 and who married Mary Madeleine Prosper.”

[34]Learned C ounsel c onfidently ar gued t hat t his decides t he c ase, u nless J uliette Richard Africain as far back as 1929 was an accomplice of the Defendants in a dastardly scheme to deprive the Plaintiffs of their lands. Counsel noted that Jean Baptiste Joseph was alive at that date and could have taken steps to correct such an e gregious w rong. M r. Theodore i mplored t he C ourt t o f ind t hat a J uliette conspiracy is too far-fetched to contemplate and in any event, the Plaintiffs have not pleaded this.

[35]What the Plaintiffs have pleaded is that the Defendants are ‘ probably’ the children of Nemorin and Elizabeth Avril who falsely claimed to be the children of Nemorin Felicien and Labrune Felicien whereby the Plaintiffs were excluded as the lawful heirs of Avril Africain. Their pleaded case was that they were the heirs of Nemorin Felicien and Labrune Felicien, the latter being the daughter of Avril Africain.

[36]Under cross-examination, this is what Lucius Joseph deposed: “The children of the other Avril Africain are the Feliciens. Elizabeth, the daughter of A vril A fricain m arried N emorin F elicien a nd ha d t he Defendants as their children. I accept this. I accept that Eddie Felicien is the s on o f E lizabeth w ho w as bapt ized S ylvestre. I agr ee t hat M a Villeneuve i s t he da ughter of E lizabeth an d N emorin F elicien. J uliette Richard was the mother of Elizabeth Avril who was married to Nemorin Felicien. I accept that Juliette was married to Avril Antoine Africain. None of those Africains were related to me. I never claimed that I was related to the Defendants. I never claimed that I was related to David Moise. The only r elation t o D avid M oise i s i n r elation t o h is f ather, E dwin M oise through Philo. When I was about 10 years old, there was a terrible fire in Gros I slet an d M a A vril J oseph di ed i n t his f ire. S he w as m y gr eat grandmother. She i s t he s ame M arie M adeleine P rosper w ho m arried Jean Baptiste Joseph also known as Avril Joseph.”

[37]In the light of overwhelming evidence, Lucius Joseph conceded that Labrune and Elizabeth were one and t he same person. What then did the Plaintiffs do? They came up with a splendid idea albeit in violation of the rules of pleading in the High Court.

[38]The P laintiffs’ c ase bec ame t hat t here w ere t wo A vril A fricains and t heir A vril Africain owned the land in dispute. The first hurdle confronted by the Plaintiffs was that there was an abundance of evidence to support the finding that Jean Baptiste Joseph was their ancestor. The Plaintiffs then attempted to convince the Court that Jean B aptiste J oseph w as al so c alled A vril J oseph even i n t he dearth of c ivil status records. The closest document that made mention of the name “Africain” is a Marriage Certificate of one of his sons where Avril Joseph was also called Jean Baptiste Joseph Africain.

[39]Contending that there have no algebraic equations to stumble through to ascertain whom the one and only Avril Africain is, the Defendants agreed with the Plaintiffs that Jean Baptiste Joseph was called Avril Joseph. The Defendants agreed that Jean B aptiste J oseph w as al so c alled J ean Baptiste J oseph Africain. B ut t he Defendants em phatically di sagreed t hat J ean B aptiste J oseph w as ev er called Avril Africain. The Defendants asserted that there was only one Avril Africain and he has been consistently referred to by that name in all civil status records, except for his Marriage Certificate where he was named Antoine Africain. In his eloquent timbre, Mr. Theodore exclaimed: “but never was Avril Africain called Jean Baptiste Joseph.”

[40]At t his j uncture, L earned C ounsel f or t he D efendants attacked the s keletal arguments of t he P laintiffs w here t hey c onceded t hat t he A vril A fricain w ho purchased the 6-carre plot of Tivoli Estate from de Brettes was the Defendants’ Avril A fricain. T he P laintiffs s tated c ategorically t hat “we make no claims to these 6 carres” without r ealizing t hat w as a f atal c oncession. I n a C hamber application, t he D efendants m oved t he C ourt f or J udgment on A dmission. According to Counsel, the Plaintiffs were cornered. Up to late August 1999 when the Defendants produced the Survey Report GI 172, the Plaintiffs were unaware that the one and only Avril Africain was crucially linked to both the 6 carre and the 6.5 carre plots.

[41]According t o t he D efendants, ano ther i ngenious pl an w as dev ised by Luc ius Joseph: to show that there were two Avril Africains based on John Quinlan’s style of writing his reports To support his argument, Lucius Joseph made reference to a Survey done at the instance of Dame Ferdinand on 26th day of April 1893 (Exhibit DM 14). In my view, this argument has no merit.

[42]Mr. Theodore launched another attack at the Plaintiffs “fishing expedition” as he termed it. Counsel submitted that the Plaintiffs tried to convince the Court that they knew the Tivoli Estate owned by Avril Africain. They engaged Mr. Jerome Joseph, a Licensed Land Surveyor who testified as follows: “I w as engag ed by M r. J oseph to go to t he T ivoli a rea i n C ap E state sometime last year. I accompanied Lucius Joseph to an area called South Hills and then to Parcel 234. We passed the Cas-en-bas Road, up by the development by Mr. Fostin over South Hills to Parcel 234. Lucius Joseph claimed that the area between pink and yellow belonged to him as well as South Hills as well as the Fostin’s development.”

[43]The Jerome Joseph’s induction into the case shed some light that the Plaintiffs had no i dea of the topography of the lands that they claimed. On the evidence presented, I found as a fact that the Plaintiffs had occupied the lands of Leonard Marie and hi s wife, Turina Marie, the very cousin Turina they had mentioned in their skeletal arguments.

[44]Although the case was based predominantly on factual findings, Learned Counsel was s till unpr epared t o l eave any s tone un turned. He i njected t he l aw i nto hi s arguments. He emphasized that in order for the Plaintiffs to succeed in this case, they have to improbate the 1929 D eed by Juliette Richard Africain; overturn the Prescriptive O rder of t he Court m ade i n 1 974 w hich i s res judicata and t he decision of the Land Registration and Titling P roject in 1985 w hich is also res judicata.

[45]He referred to Article 2112 of the Civil Code which reads: “He who acquires a corporeal immovable in good faith under a written title, prescribes t he ownership t hereof and l iberates himself f rom t he servitudes, charges, and hypothecs upon it by an effective possession in virtue of such title during ten years.”

[46]Counsel submitted that this Article would operate to convey title to Eddie Felicien and Bernadette Sylvestre of the lands acquired under the Juliette Richard Africain Deed of 1929 after ten years occupation.

[47]In respect of the Title Deed of 1880, the Defendants maintained that this is another straw that the Plaintiffs have clung to. According to the Defendants, after Juliette died, her grandchildren misplaced the Deed and so, in Civil Suit No. 225 of 1975, the Defendants deposed that they did not have any title deeds or receipts. I agree with M r. T heodore that t he ar guments advanced by Lear ned C ounsel f or t he Plaintiffs that the contra preferendum rule is applicable cannot hold good as the Juliette Deed and the civil status records prove that the Avril Africain who owned the Tivoli Estate was the ancestor of the Defendants.

[48]The Plaintiffs clung to their final straw: the Declaration of Succession by Adrienne Felicien [Exhibit 93]. They fought hard to show either that the Defendants were entitled only to Parcel 100 or that the deceased, Jean Baptiste Richard also known as Richard Jn Baptiste or Jn B aptiste Delia referred to in t hat Declaration was somehow a relation of theirs. I n my view, this argument lacks substance as the Defendants abl y pr oduced t he B irth C ertificate of J ean B aptiste R ichard w hich established his identity as the son of Richard and Juliette Africain [Exhibit DM 95].

[49]Finally, the Defendants submitted that they have nothing to prove and urged the Court to dismiss the action with Costs.

CONCLUSION

[50]On t he w hole, I f ind t he ar guments adv anced by Lear ned C ounsel f or t he Defendants to be more compelling. The argument advanced by Learned Queen’s Counsel, Mr. Kenneth Foster that there were two Avril Africains is in my view with all due r espect to Counsel, specious. I n no c ivil status record is Jean Baptiste Joseph ever referred to as Avril Africain.

[51]In addition, I am bemused that the main thrust of the Plaintiffs’ argument was not specifically pleaded in accordance with the rules of pleading in the High Court.

[52]Another m ysterious c ircumstance r elates t o t he P laintiffs’ s keletal s ubmissions where they categorically stated: “we make no claims to these 6 carres”. On the facts as I found them, there was only one Avril Africain. He owned both the 6 carre and the 6.5 carre plots of land and he was the ancestor of the Defendants.

[53]As the evidence unfolded, it seemed clear to me that the Plaintiffs did not know their ow n c ase. T he P laintiffs al so hav e t o s atisfy the C ourt on a balance of probabilities that they are the heirs of Avril Africain who owned the land in dispute. They have failed to do so in all respects.

[54]In the final analysis, I cannot agree more with Mr. Theodore that this action by the Plaintiffs is nothing more than a” big fishing expedition” which they have engaged in at the expense of the Court and the Defendants.

[55]Accordingly, the action is dismissed with Costs to the Defendants.

Indra Hariprashad-Charles

High Court Judge

CIVIL SUIT NO. 718 OF 1997 Haripershad-Charles, J Delivered: 15/12/00