Carl Nicholls v Godfred Nicholls

\ .. I I • , J.-. · r~' ~AINT VINCENT AND TI-..E GRENi.DINES 1 .I.. " ! t " t' , 1.4: .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ,­ , " · !: l;:l · i SUIT NO: 467 of 1993 ~ , . , I' r I ' BETWEEN: Y. CARL NICHOLLS Executor of the I .­ Will ofCLAUDE NICHOLLS PLAIN 1FF AND , I " " GODFRED NICHOLLS Douglas Williams and Ms. Home for the plaintiff . \ A. F. Williams for the defendant. , ' 'J I 1st DeceII1ber'J997 Delivered 2nd Dece Iber.1997 . r ' 'I " BAPTISTEJ. ,\' It JUDGMpN~ . ! . " The plaintiffs claim, is for: 1 '. I ' . } ..,. (; . ,I J (i) Recovery of pof;se >sion (If a p1rllel ofl t. situate at Re1~ir. :. , I . I' (ii) A Declaration f')r ;he carceHation of Statutory Declaration, No. 294 f'l~93. I (iii) Further or other reliel: (iv) Costs . I , . ' I ' . The plaintiff sues as execut)'I' of the will of Claude Nicholls Jeceased wh 'died on fh.e 25th of I March, 1984, Probate oftht 8al11 will was i8sufd out If the High Court of !us~ce 0'1:~1~ 5th ~~f October, 1993 (Probate No. 155 of 1993). ',' ~, , • I • I ,1 I ' • ' I I . \ The plaintiff testified in exami lation in chief that Clau4e Nicholls left 18Qd ddr his will for hi ' . wife Miriam Nicholls, (that's Claude's Nife) an~ after h!!r death ·t<: D~b , N~cholls, Cla~de's ,', t grand-daugbter. Miriam Nicholls died and the laiid n4w belongs to ,Debra )mt\he.!ms ~otlbee~ .. ' able to pass the land to Debra. The reason he advance4 was that before CIa e lftcholls died he " " .!,' put the defendant to work the l~d and the deft:ndant l'Isti1bwor~g the I ;' ",e sta*,~,that he . gave the defendant verbal notice to quit the land but th Jefendant has not Ie', 1· • f i ,I , ~.,,i, • lrr " f (

, f ' .2, I " , • " 'j , , ••Ie defendant testified in examinaHon in ~hiefthat hJ ~11 been o~ the land 'si~ 197~,'he 'built a ~ouse on the lan~ in that year ar d the lan,d was his. H}.' explained that bef~ the I~ ~ame+ It, belonged to hiS ~eat uncle, ( laude NiCholls, The, ~f~ndant said~e ~ia n<> rent 8I}.d did not give any~ne anythmg he planted on the ~~d. He ~ ler s~ted tha~ no on m~lestedrfll"on the' ._ land until the year 1992 when the plamtlff tol~ hlJ, he was gomg to~Jm~is1rate the. land. L Further he never ackn()wledged tru,lt the lfUld belo~ged ~o ~ybody else but, ~~lf, I' I , : I I, " I I' , As I understand it, the plaintiff is 'contending that, ~e Defen~ant en~d 1/Ie I!lDd ~ ,"s allowed to work the land with the pennission (of Claude Nicholls, decejase4. The defendant however contends that he did not ente~ the land with u!e permissIon (ifany ':ne./ No one ~avf him permission to work the ) md and he entered ir,to possedsion in ~ 977 be~ote .1au~e J~icholls'died. ' , ' I;, I r '! If the plaintiff's contention is right, the defendant is p~ licencee., ~ he la 15 'at occupation of , land as a licencee is not adverse p01S -:ssion. (See H~st.l.ry's Law at:En 'Ian ~ 4th ed. Volume, ' '\' 28 paragraph 751) I" '{ . ~ , • I , . . .' r til" I: I accept the evidence oftrie defendant that no one gav him permission to 'uil on the land or to "I. , , work the land and I 'accordin~l~ hold that he was not a liceneee. 1 " , , h 9' fh' D .. , th ' i ," The defendant states lt1 piU'agrai) I) IS ~ cnce a, ' ' ' ' ,_ "", because of hi. continUous and exclusive Possession.for up ds ~f 12 Y~ prior to the filing of this ..lction, the .plaintiff's title \\ as extinguish cl by ,virtue of " the provisions of sectio~~ 19 of the Limitation Act of Saint·V , eelt ~d the , , , I Grenadines Cap. 90." t · j j r "I Sections 17 (1) and 19 oftr.e Li1nitation Act prpvides as follows: I • • 17 (1) "No action sh 111 be brought by any person to recover an lma after the .' I I I I expiration of twelve years fro~ the date on w~ch the .gh~ of action , t ' accrued to him or, if it flirst accrued to ,some pers~n thr ugh: wh\:irp he . t. " claims to that person. If "I i: I'. "'.' . , 'f, "Subject to sec.tion 20, at the expi~atit.n of the period pre 'critfd by.this Act for any p~rsOIl t6 bring . an a1fon' to re~over Ian '. (~CIUdiJI1~, a " redemption action) the .title of t1l~t . person to the IUldi' shall be' I .l ., extinguished. " , \ ' . -. · The question is whether the plaintiffs Htle was e"'in~Shed ~/wiul of section: 19, As"., executor the plaintiff derived his title not fro") the! ~t of probate Jt lipm\ tht wi11. An t. executor may generally do before. probl\te all thii,.gs thi~h pertain to the 't;xe~rial o,ffiee. He I, . I I', . , . I.... • I#-'

" 1 • .. 3 " I . r't .­ " . t' t -{ 1 • ' ',~ , I .. , ! • • , j . _.lay beglD an action as executor before probate) (See Halsbury's Law' of England 4th ed. , I Volume 17 para 730 and para 7:'1). ; l I . , · i . ~ \ '~ ! : Claude Nicholls had twelve years from th~ time fhe d¥nciant entered into po~~essi~~ in '197 I fO . I • I . bring an action. That is up until 1989. He ~id nothing. lie died ~n MfCh 25th, 1 ~X4"t Th~ plaintiff as executor, claiming through Claude Nichon~.had frC'm 25th Mar ,h. +8~ until 198Q to bring an action against the defendant, , :' '1 I . . , · r, I lind as a fact that C audeo Nicholls died on the 25th o~ March '.98J ),he. 1efe¥~t entered into .' '" possession of the land sometime in 1977 and remain~d. ~n ~oniinu, us,and' exc i1siye,~sx~ion " . for upwards of twelve years ""fore the filing of !his ~ctio~ rn Novembe 2, 993, ,He b~t ,;. , house on the land, paid nt rent, worked the land and gJ',ve no one 'from t~le rod~. Theplairltiff ,- . ,I is claiming through, Claude Nic bolls 'whose right of attion ~t accrued· '19 7. ,T4e plaintiff{ brought his suit on'NovembJr 2, l,'93 at a til wh~n his title was exti gui~~ea by v:rtue of' '. , 1 , I ' , · section 19 ofthe Limitatic,n Act Chaptq:' 90 (\f~ 'nt V ncent and the Oren ,ine~I' ':, , J. l; • P '. L' ,. :, i ~ I ' It is ordered that the plaintifL's action is dism. ssed with costs to be taxed if . i. ; , .d. I I ;, r 1 •• "" I ~I f :, p~..,-~.~ , ' [ avidsQn Kelvi ~ptiste High C_ourt Jud e (Ag., • :, I • ',I f " • I ' I: " 11 1\ , I; , I ' ~ .. i , ) I r't .-' t , ' ! " I t', f r .\. " ."

.. • I I \ J.-. r~' ~AINTVINCENT AND TI-..E GRENi.DINES 1 .I.. “ ! t “ t' , 1.4: .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ,” · !: l;:l · i SUIT NO: 467 of 1993 ~ , ., , I' r I ‘ BETWEEN: Y. CARL NICHOLLS Executor of the I Will ofCLAUDE NICHOLLS PLAIN 1FF AND , I “ “ GODFRED NICHOLLS Douglas Williams and Ms. Home for the plaintiff . \ A. F. Williams for the defendant. , ‘ I ‘J 1st DeceII1ber’J997 Delivered 2nd Dece Iber.1997 . r ‘ 'I “ BAPTISTEJ. ,\’ It JUDGMpN~ . ! . . } ..,. (; . ,I J “ The plaintiffs claim, is for: 1 ‘. (i) (i) Recovery of pof;se >sion (If a p1rllel ofl t. situate at Re1~ir. :. , I . I' (ii) A Declaration f’)r ;he carceHation of Statutory Declaration, No. 294 f’l~93. I (iii) Further or other reliel: (iv) Costs . I

, . ‘ I . the plaintiff sues as execut)’I’ of the will of Claude NiCholls, Jeceased wh ‘died on fh.e 25th ofI March, 1984, Probate oftht 8al11 will was i8sufd out If the High Court of !us~ce 0’1:~1~ 5th ~~f October, 1993 (Probate No. 155 of 1993). ‘,’ ~,, • I • I, ,1 I ‘ • ‘ I' I . \ the plaintiff testified in exami lation in chief that, Clau4e Nicholls, left 18Qd ddr his will for hi ‘ . wife Miriam Nicholls, (that’s Claude’s Nife) an~ after h!!r death ·tt grand-daugbter. Miriam Nicholls died and The laiid n4w belongs to ,Debra )mt\he.!ms ~otlbee~.. ‘ able to pass the land to Debra. the reason he advance4 was that before CIa e lftcholls died he ” “ . . il .!,’ put the defendant to work the l~d and the deft:ndant l’Isti1bwor~g the I ;’ “,e sta*,~,that he . gave the! defendant verbal notice to quit the land

but th Jefendant has not Ie’, 1 , • f I I , ~.,,i, • lr r~ j ” f ( , f ‘ .2, I “ , • ” ‘j , , ••Ie defendant testified in examinaHon in ~hiefthat hJ ~11 been o~ the land ‘si~ 197~,’he ‘built a ~ouse on the lan~ in that year ar d the lan,d was !his H}.’ explained that bef~the I~~ame+ It, belonged to hiS ~eat uncle, ( laude NiCholls, The, ~f~ndant said~e ~ia n<> rent 8I}.d did not give any~ne anythmg ,He planted on the ~~d. He ~ler s~ted tha~ no on m~lestedrfll”on the ._ land until the year 1992 when the plamtlff tol~ hlJ, he was gomg to~Jm~is1rate the land. Further he never ackn()wledged tru,lt the lfUld belo~ged~o ~ybody else but, ~~lf, I ~I , : ',I I ” I: I; , As I understand it, the plaintiff is ‘contending that, ~e Defen~ant en~d 1/Ie I!lDd ~ ,”s allowed to work

the land with the pennission (of Claude Nicholls, decejase4. The defendant however contends that he did not ente~ the land with u!e permissIon (ifany ‘:ne./ No one ~avf him permission to work the ) md and he entered ir,to possedsion in ~ 977 be~ote .1au~e J~icholls’died. ‘ , ‘ I;, I r ‘! If the plaintiff’s contention is right, the defendant is p~ licencee., ~ he la 15 ‘at occupation of , land as a licencee is not adverse p01S -:ssion. (See H~st.l.ry’s Law at:En ‘Ian ~ 4th ed. Volume, ‘ ‘\’ 28 paragraph 751) I” ‘{ . ~ , • I , . . .’ r til” I: I accept the evidence oftrie defendant that no one gav him permission to ‘uil on the land or to “I. , , work the land and I’accordin~l~ hold that he was not a liceneee. 1 “ , , h 9′ fh’ D .. , th ‘ i ,” The defendant states

lt1 piU’agrai) I) IS ~ cnce a, ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ,_ “”, because of hi. continUous and exclusive Possession.for up ds ~f 12 Y~ prior to the filing of this ..lction, the .plaintiff’s title \ as extinguish cl by ,virtue of “ the provisions of sectio~~ 19 of the Limitation Act of Saint·V , eelt ~d the , , , I Grenadines Cap. 90.” t · j j r “I Sections 17 (1) and 19 oftr.e Li1nitation Act prpvides as follows: I • • 17 (1) “No action sh 111 be brought by any person to recover an lma after the .’ I I I I expiration of twelve years fro~ the date on w~ch the .gh~ of action , t ‘ accrued to him or, if it flirst accrued to ,some pers~n thr ugh: wh:irp he . t . ” claims to that person. If “I i: I’. “‘.’ . , 19 “Subject to sec.tion 20, at the

expi~atit.n of the period pre ‘critfd by.this ‘f, Act for any p~rsOIl t6 bring . an a1fon’ to re~over Ian ‘. (~CIUdiJI1~,a “ L The question is whether the plaintiffs Htle was e”‘in~Shed ~/wiulof section: 19, As”., executor the plaintiff derived his title not fro”) the! ~tof probate Jt lipm\ tht wi11. An t. executor may generally do before. probl\te all thii,.gs thi~h pertain to the ‘t;xe~rial o,ffiee. He I, . I I’, ., . I • I ,I I I r I…. I ‘f L • I#-‘ i , I “ ( redemption action) the .title of t1l~t . person to the IUldi’ shall be’ I ,.; I.l ., extinguished. ” , \ ‘ . -. · 1 “ 1 • .. 3 ” I . r’t .” . t’ t -{ 1 • ‘ ‘,~ , I .. , ! • • ,j. _.lay beglD an action as executor before probate) (See Halsbury’s Law’ of England 4th ed.

, I Volume 17 para 730 and para 7:’1). ; l I . , · i . ~ \ ” ‘~ ! : Claude Nicholls had twelve years from th~ time fhe d¥nciant entered into po~~essi~~ in ‘197 I fO . I • I . bring an action. That is up until 1989. He ~id nothing. lie died ~n MfCh 25th, 1 ~X4″t Th~ plaintiff as executor, claiming through Claude Nichon~.had frC’m 25th Mar ,h. +8~ until 198Q to bring an action against the defendant, , :’ ‘1 I . . , · r, I lind as a fact that C audeo Nicholls died on the 25th o~March ‘.98J ),he. 1efe¥~tentered into .’ ‘” possession of the land sometime in 1977 and remain~d. ~n ~oniinu, us,and’ exc i1siye,~sx~ion ” . for upwards of twelve years “”fore the filing of !his ~ctio~ rn Novembe 2, 993, ,He b~t ,;. , house on the land, paid nt rent, worked the land and

gJ’,ve no one ‘from t~le rod~. Theplairltiff ,-. ,I is claiming through, Claude Nic bolls ‘whose right of attion ~taccrued· ’19 7. ,T4e plaintiff{ brought his suit on’NovembJr 2, l,’93 at a til wh~n his title was exti gui~~ea by v:rtue of’ ‘. , 1 , I ‘ , · section 19 ofthe Limitatic,n Act Chaptq:’ 90 (\f~ ‘nt V ncent and the Oren ,ine~I’ ‘:, , J. l; • P ‘. L’ ,. :, i ~ I ‘ It is ordered that the plaintifL’s action is dism. ssed with costs to be taxed if . i. ; , .d. I I ;, r 1 •• “” I ~I f :, p~..,-~.~ , ‘ [ avidsQn Kelvi ~ptiste High C_ourt Jud e (Ag., • :,I • ‘,I f “ • I ‘ I: “ 11 1\ , ‘ ~ .. i , ) I I; , 1 I r’t .-‘ t , ‘ ! “ I I’ t’, ‘f «

f I I \ , t r ~ ! , ‘\ .” .. r . I “