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 .\. " ."