CALLUM DE MYERS et al v HENRY FERDINAND et al

~ SAINT LUCIA # 0 31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 Suit No.98 of 1994 Between: -...... ( 1 ) ('2 ) ( 3 ) ( 4 ) ( 5 ) CALLUM DE MYERS :HR:SrOPHER DE MYERS CECILY DE MYERS PAUL DE MYERS LEO DE MYERS Plaintiffs \ "-- v s (1) HENRY FERDINAND (2) ALBERTINE FERDINAND Defendants ~ r s. P . ~els on for Plainciffs ~ r . R . Frederick for Defendants 2.99 6 : Ju l y 2.2 and

2.9 JUDGMENT '~:~::~~';~~1:~S\~ ? .':J:> On February 2. 0, 2.994 the Plalnc: ff s : n s cic ~ce d a wr: c summons indorsed wi ch a stateme nt: ~;:: v ~ C l.al m aSKl:J.g : or oarL lt:ion of " c ercain property owned by chem se ~v es and che ~efendan t: s in und ivided shares. 'T'h i''''' ... :'He ~erenaanLS e nt:ered appeara r:c e ,:; n ?e c~~a r::r ~ ~~ ~! 4 . The ,.... "'!. ..,. .. ~ _ . .. , De r enaants ala noc __ _ e a ~ e!e nce Due cne r 2 were _engcny interlocutory pro ceAd ings between che ?arc ies . h . 1 ' . -. - . . - , . . - - . - , At c. e trla 1t was noc ~lsput:eQ :nac cne ~lalnc:= : s ~re ent: lc~ea : .:-'.e :::;:::e - s ixch . co f ive-sixchs o f c he prcper:' jr Licensed Land Surveyor , Al lan ~i ppo ~y ce s ub~l cc e d a recor c co t he Courc with an accompanylng d rawing of c~e p~OpOSeG 9arL ~ = ~ on ~ dispute i~ this case ~s as to:. :ocation of:. Sef s' r ... · . I..-y. In his testimony before ::his 20ur: .'\llan:~ ly::e: st:a::e:d ::hat :. ~s a beach border:.ng ~.;:: '~~ -he: land, ~easurlng st:ance 260 feet. He further said tl1at: :.he prope:c-::y rlses _rc'm ::he Anse-La-Verdure r'~ve:c- co a :c-idge, :hen falls "::0 anot r :0 the North. ~1:c- :::ippo: yte was ,,-..,,";: '-' "- v~:ew : .. at :: ~~e ~rQ""'" '-"._1..-0 or around the Leach ~s +::::e ~est: 0art ;- ~ ... e ;: :;:::-cpe:!:':: y .::tna realized that both Part~es would wan:: ::,~,,"e oeac:: - Yr'"'---.. ct..l...c::::c:t. ;-:e Late:d :c-: II If a parti tion is made cased on quan tum :::'e L te Vvray ....... "'-"""n 1- "fll--t ::'l ... .J.i...,..( 2S to gi ve one Far ::::ne S c ... t:. Qf :he ceac .. r: :he other Party fi ve S2X ch t. II -,~ to- ~~ ~ ,3.1-ea Mr Hippol yte also sLat:: n he wenL Defendants were occupying t LOLal beach f:c-ont ana .e: saw onut t:c-ees, plantain and pIanLed ne :::e saw ::.ouse which was located quite close :0 L :c-~ver but - ~ii(i ::-,~ot: ~ wi the Queen's chain. He d he also saw a conc:c-e:e slab on :.he ana appears ::hat. L his proposed plan ~­ v_ :::art.': t':cn would """""""'AY YA ... _'-'- ..... - .--- concrete slab. '2"(1 =- ::ier.;.c e .:-_3::.._ .. :.-=--_ ..... 3 ! Bes s Hippolyte who =e ,-:-:e Myers and . ' .CllS mOLhe:c-, 2ec=--=- Ce :c-s, :::rave ":::'l=- ::.e::C2:: pla iff while both Cefendan:s gave eVldence. ::at ,_ ..... e Fre::: -'1-.,......, :.ot ity f '- ~lc e"'12.aeY1ce seems c ..... ea::: ':-',e ~:-~e'l did Plaintiffs were not occupying :he land on a dai basis. not intimate that they cultlvaced '- c:c- lived :.he:c-e even f:c-cm :ime to time, say while visi:ing ~. Defendants on the ocher hand, a3 the surveyor ~ound, I believe, or at any rate one of chern, was in dai oc ion that is why they were able co occupy che entire ach area. title of the PIa iffs was cased on severa ens r::.. :: '¥ve re tceo into evidence as C.YI.:, C.:vT.2, C.:vT. ~.>:.L; ::;.::d .~ beginning from a sale by Vernon AugJsrin to c~r'stopner _e ~vers on June 17, 1953 down to June , ::.. 9 92 when :'.:1ere 'fVas ed f orrection to a vesting ~ assent ~~e state ~~ ~~~Q e rs ~o the Plaintiffs. Defendants' title which was --.=:.,~ '- '- '- '-"'- ':':1 t::) '2\l:::" ::er-'_c s was based on a sale by Clerfand ~aurencin to Ferguson =e ":r:anci f an undivided one-sixth share _:J carres ~.;:: vL :.::e ~sperar:ce 2:state che Quarter of Anse-La- schedule to this deed states that ~ ~ort rn is Ravine Chalon. n it. ,-_Y!. ..,.., v,hi -c::: a. -- E. Quinland between 1896 and 1897 ~avine Chalon appears - be ::ar from the sea on the Easter:::,,, si f t:-.e drawlc.g. ~ .. is ains why 1 . .., _lcensea land surveyor, 8t.i.~ " 69 placed the Heirs of Ferguson Ferdinand the ~as ern eC-'on :: land in dispute. "'eI>~;:~ -0 Land Surveyor, Allan ::-lippo 'lte, :..s ::::8r~ec:. 'IJneY"'o. -:!eS 8,n Court dated April c-0, _ ~ ~ ~ ::e st.-aLes ::hat. :':-' .. 2 ~~C::""""";r"'~'t'""' ~"Y'"' ,--",",--"",,"--,_ ...... ~l- __ '-" ... i :..S Henry Ferdinand's deed of sale lS very vague as no A one-sixth share of a portion of "and cannot be iefined. As _ said earlier the Parties ~~vo ~areR~ that the ?l~'~= _fs are entitled to ownership of five-sixths of ~he ~and le -he Defendants are entitled to one-slxth. :-'l1e quaD t.:.:m joe S :-:0:: 9' r e to any difficulty but what is ~~ _ssue is -he CCatlon -~ _he Defendants t one-sixth share. '-' Surveyor Shillingford sought ~o locate che co t Eastern section in 1969 Henry Ferguson clearly obJected as stated the surveyor's report. ,- , - , < - - present state or tne races ~s t~at _~e Jereneants c~py ..L the beach front and do .. ~L 1"- dcubt. ::a c ~-:e ';:":1 ~ ... ot ViSlt regularly or make ~se o~ their _ane. 7\ _. , ,," - . • . ~ccordlng to surveyor _an ~lPfo~ _e, a -al ~e nee part_t~on d be to give the Defendanc 8ne-s=-xth c: ::.:-' ... e . .- Ceac;: ::2:.~8:- because are entitled to one s h of - approxl~ately ~ acres f the ,.-.,-.~ '"r"""\ -, - ... '--'-' ..... uc:tL land. Hippolyte no ~egare co c~e ,;; che Defendants. Now it cannot be right since the beach area is che most val e of the land to allow the Defendants co reeain che entire beach front as their Counsel teed. ..:::....no jTer: some ~qua t. ~8:1 :-:1USt. De found to pay some -:::egard - '"" -'-' ,.. ::::efendants l ~"'ccupat':8~ am however not persuaded that ::lave been :::-'J.e~e ~ ~ _ '""i.e: as would have expected :o-:::d -ro -'-' say somet.l:~~ ... g :.:-:ac _ect. I notice that despite Mr Frederick1s accack on -~c ~e --aD_e las Christopher De Myers his proposed plan for sub dl ~s exh it C.M.7, seems more ~avourable co che ::::efendants -han _ne roposed plan of Allan Hippolyte admicted i~to eVldence as ~.~.~. ~he scale of both drawings is 1: 2 , SO 0 and ~s ar surveyor De Meyers gave a longer beac~. _ront :0 _he e~ s which would in all probabili s ::::efendancs ~oncrete slab. I am inclined to Drefer :he proposed Ian made stopher De Myers rather chan c t made .;;11an yte. To take account of the Defendants' occuDation and e~lt'vation as well as the extent of the Plaintiffs' ownersh am go r a sub-division of the land oreer c~at c~e ::::efendancs ~bta_::1 one- third of the beach front and t Plal::1tlI_S co oCtal::1 :he remalning '-" two-thirds. I am going to ask ~r Ian e to s drawing to that extent, t ccsts af whi shall """01""''''''0 .......,'--.1_"" .... - r- Parties in equal shares and ta report _a -~e curt i:.~ s:. weeks. In add~tion the Plal~tif:s sna~_ ~cmpenSatl ~ne ,-, ,C - - Derenaants r:or any crops _ast as a resu.:.t ~r- _:'.e ;::artltlan as learned Counsel PI iffs sugges'Cec s - ~ ss. reach Further - sha.L_ , , , to Dear ~lS cwn COStS f se - eedings. s ma'Cter will be adjourned to rs on 8c r _996 to consider Mr Hippoly'Ce's and to set up t~e mac~~nery far the r T' ... r'!-'" .- ~ ,~~ ""- ....... ~'-"'.l. .... uation of the crops affected by t.

A.N.J. MATTHEW

PUISNE JUDGE

Suit No. 98 of 1994 Matthew, J Delivered: 19/07/96