PAUL BOLAND et al v EVARISTE AMBRJSE et al

SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 it No. 1~; of 1996 BETWEEN:

1.PAUL BOLAND

2.BRENDA BOLAND Petit and 1. EVARISTE AMBRJSE 2. CHRISTINE GEORGE Respondents Mrs. V. Barnard for Petitioners . P. Straughn for Respondents 1996: June 7; July 31; August 1. J U D G MEN T MATTHEW J. (In Chambers) . March 1, 1996 the Petitioners applied under Articles 841 et seq o the Code of Civil Procedure for a of unct to restrain the Respondents from obstructing or to truct their access over a portion land whi leads to rty registered as parcel 1456B 59. The petition was supported by a joint affidavit of the Petitioners. As exhibits they tendered their land registration certificate for 1 59 as well as the land certificate of the Respondents for e1303. Also exhibi~?~ ~n pvid3~ce ~3S ~ map sheet for Block 1 56B which contains parcels 59 and 303. The Petitioners also exhibited their deed of sale by Dunstan Joseph and Esther Monrose to the Petitioners. The map sheet shows t 1 59 is as North: A large described as 593R; South: Parcel 303 and an unmarked East: 300i West: 53. In short contention Det is are entitled to a right of from t 1 59 0ver t portion land to a road which is parcel G1. In fact the Petitioners go further and parcel 61. In his affidavit May 29, 1996 f Re whom the Second Respondent handles all including the property concerned, admits that on 4th September, 1995 the Second erect across the entire access road to Petit totally obstructing the Petit I access to thpir The first Respondent access c~a icants is parcel 61. But c ion land over ch access road runs is of

03.The Respondents submitt s of ir content One of the exhibits is a an Ie Crane f icensed land surveyor, on August 8, 1975. This an I was drawn long fore strat tl ect. I did not f it helpful. also tendered some deeds than t:.~c Qf che titloners a view to showing t the access road was not In one deed dated September 28, 1978 from Severine James to Ivan James the boundaries of a portion of land comprising 9, 999 square did not refer to an access road. In a later dee~ by Ivan James to Dunstan Es on December 9, 1985 the same piece of land had s lar save that mention is made of the access road. ~he deed the Petitioners have identical boundaries to dated December 9, 1985. ~he contention of the Respondents is that the unmarked port of and on the map sheet is theirs and is really part of parcel 303. the face of the document that contention is fficult to maintain. ~he official map sheet seems to have a parcel f land the shape of an oblong. There is a definite sion of parcel of land from North to South down the middle or a ~ittle more sterly than centre. The Eastern Sect is clearly 303. Westerly Section is unmarked but t Respondents are the owners of the Westerly Sect As a precautionary measure before I gave a decision after matter was heard on June 7, I asked for a from Surveyor as to the extent parcels 303 61. In s reply the surveyor gave the number square feet in each he submitted a plan the area and the an would seem to cate that there is some roadway to the West of parcel 303 so it appears that the unmarked portion of the map t is some roadway and does not form part of parcel 303. One of the submissions of the Respondents is that Dunstan Joseph who sold to the Petitioners is a licensed land surveyor and he ~~e~ certai~ ~~~~ches of contract and trust and altered - boundaries of the land of the second Respondent. If they are correct it would appear that official recognition of these breaches have taken place. I am not here determining the ownership of the unmarked portion land. If the Respondents claim that area it seems to me ess the register is tered their aim will be ile. balance of convenience dictates that in meantime Petitioners must have access from the roadway at 1 61 over unmarked pG:tion of land to their own parcel land, 59. My oreer is that - Upon the Peti tioners giving t usual undert as to damages which may be incurred by thE sue of this unct it is ordered that the Respondents rest t themselves, the agents or servants truct or threatening to obstruct in any manner whatsoever the Petitioners' access from the road over unmarked land to their own parcel No. 59 until further order. 2. The Respondents shall pay the Petitioners' costs the sum $300.00.

A.N.J. MATTHEW

Puisne

SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 it No. 1~; of 1996 BETWEEN:

1.PAUL BOLAND

2.BRENDA BOLAND and

03.The Respondents submitt s of ir content One of the exhibits is a an Ie Crane f icensed land surveyor, on August 8, 1975. This an I was drawn long fore strat tl ect. I did not f it helpful. also tendered some deeds than t:.~c Qf che titloners a view to showing t the access road was not In one deed dated September 28, 1978 from Severine James to Ivan James the boundaries of a portion of land comprising 9, 999 square did not refer to an access road. In a later dee~ by Ivan James to Dunstan Es on December 9, 1985 the same piece of land had s save that mention is made of the access road. lar ~he deed the Petitioners have identical boundaries to dated December 9, 1985. ~he contention of the Respondents is that the unmarked port of and on the map sheet is theirs and is really part of parcel 303. the face of the document that contention is fficult to maintain. ~he official map sheet seems to have a parcel f land the shape of an oblong. There is a definite sion of parcel of land from North to South down the middle or a ~ittle more sterly than centre. The Eastern Sect is clearly 303. Westerly Section is unmarked but t Respondents are the owners of the Westerly Sect As a precautionary measure before I gave a decision after matter was heard on June 7, I asked for a from Surveyor as to the extent parcels 303 61. In s reply the surveyor gave the number square feet in each 1 he submitted a plan the area and the an would seem to cate that there is some roadway to the West of parcel 303 so it appears that the unmarked portion of the map t is some roadway and does not form part of parcel 303. One of the submissions of the Respondents is that Dunstan Joseph who sold to the Petitioners is a licensed land surveyor and he ~~e~ certai~ ~~~~ches of contract and trust and altered – boundaries of the land of the second Respondent. If they are correct it would appear that official recognition of these breaches have taken place. I am not here determining the ownership of the unmarked portion land. If the Respondents claim that area it seems to me ess the register is tered their aim will be ile. balance of convenience dictates that in meantime Petitioners must have access from the roadway at 1 61 over unmarked pG:tion of land to their own parcel land, 59. My oreer is that – Upon the Peti tioners giving t usual undert as to damages which may be incurred by thE sue of this unct it is ordered that the Respondents rest t themselves, the agents or servants truct or threatening to obstruct in any manner whatsoever the Petitioners’ access from the road over unmarked land to their own parcel No. 59 until further order.

2.CHRISTINE GEORGE Mrs. V. Barnard for Petitioners . P. Straughn for Respondents 1996: June 7; July 31; August 1. J U D G MEN T MATTHEW J. (In Chambers) . Petit Respondents March 1, 1996 the Petitioners applied under Articles 841 et seq o the Code of Civil Procedure for a of unct to restrain the Respondents from obstructing or to truct their access over a portion land whi leads to rty registered as parcel 1456B 59. The petition was supported by a joint affidavit of the Petitioners. As exhibits they tendered their land registration certificate for 1 59 as well as the land certificate of the Respondents for e1303. Also exhibi~?~ ~n pvid3~ce ~3S ~ map sheet for Block 1 56B which contains parcels 59 and 303. The Petitioners also exhibited their deed of sale by Dunstan Joseph and Esther Monrose to the Petitioners. The map sheet shows t 1 59 is as North: A large described as 593R; South: Parcel 303 and an unmarked 1 East: 300i West: 53. In short contention Det is are entitled to a right of from t 1 59 0ver t portion land to a road which is parcel G1. In fact the Petitioners go further and parcel 61. In his affidavit May 29, 1996 f Re whom the Second Respondent handles all including the property concerned, admits that on 4th September, 1995 the Second erect across the entire access road to Petit totally obstructing the Petit I access to thpir The first Respondent access c~a icants is parcel 61. But c ion land over ch access road runs is of

1.EVARISTE AMBRJSE

2.The Respondents shall pay the Petitioners’ costs the sum $300.00. A.N.J. MATTHEW Puisne