EDWARD FESSAL v JILL VALERIE BACON

#023 SAINT LUCIA IN THE COURT OF JUSTICE ( CIVIl.) A.D. 1996 Suit Ne 194 of 1996 BEThEEN: r 'v C

1.EDWARD FESSAL

2.HAYDEN FESSAL

3.i.ILY FESSAL by their atto::ney Stanislaus Fessal ~ aintiffs and JILL VALERIE BACON I E Defendant ( ( Mr. O. Larcher for Plaintiffs Mr. K. Monplaisir Q.C. and Miss H. Ali for Defendant ~ 1996: June 5 and 19. J U D G MEN T " MATTHEW J. (In Chambers). On March 7, 1996 the Plaintiffs filed a writ o f summons indorsed with statement o f claim asking, among other things, fo r c -I r eccification o f t he Defendant ' s own parcel o f l and , Block 1455B parcel 108 and rectification o f the Plaintiff's own parcel o f l and, Block 1455B parcel 109. The claim asked that the Defendant's acreage be lessened and that the Plaintiffs' acreage be increased. Pu c shortly it is t he Plaintiffs' contention t hat the Defendant 's l and certificate should state that they are owners o f 1 / 2 of one carre of land and not 2.50 hectares and that the difference be added to their certificate which conta ins 5.5 hectares . By their statement o f claim the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant on March 12 , 1965 bought only 1 / 2 o f a carre of l and and t he excess land on her cercificate, amouncing to approximately 4 3/4 acres of land, rightly belongs to the Plaintiffs. They 2llege that the excess land was erroneously and mi surveyed for the Defendant by licensed land Ornan Monplaisir, on December 10, 1975 and that before the Defendant purchaded the land they were in possession of the excess lands. They allege that durlng the survey the F:~intiffs were out of Lucia and could not protect the~.~ interests. They allege also that during the demarcation process under tr~ ~and Adjudication Act of ~hey duly claimed the excess land a3 being part of the prOpel"Ly and that they demarcated the same by the s. They go on to state that the excess lands were erroneous stakenly entered in the name the Defendant and they were unable to appeal the error or to institute legal action aga the Defendant because they were frustrated by a High Court accion, 21 of 1989 brought by Clifford Sylvester against them and so no alternative but to wait the decision t which was given on May 31, 1995 in their favour. They allege that the Defendant has again employed Ornan Monpl to resurvey the property with a view to its sposal. On the said March 7, 1996 the Plaintiffs took out a summons asking an order to restrain the Defendants from surveying l subdividing, selling or disposing of the land regist in her name. The summons was supported by an affidavit by Stanislaus Fessal on behalf of the Plainciffs which re erated the matters mentioned in the statement of claim. I took note of paragraphs 2, , 4, 4(a), 7, 9 - 12, 14, 18 and 21 in particular. Attached to this affidavit were several exhibits numbered 1 - ~O; 12 - 13. I had a look at all of them and will refer to them if, when and where it is necessary so to do. Some of the exhibits in my view had no bearing on the case and here I refer to Exhibits 10, 12 and 13. I did not see Exhibit 11. The Defendant filed an fidavit in opposit on March 28, 1996 Ornan Monplaisir filed one on the same date support of Defendant's contention. Attached to the affidavit of t Defendant were certain exhibits some of which were tendered by aintiff. The Defendant alleged that she purchased her 1 Johannes and Eugenis Joseph and she had enjoyed possession since then and she employed Ornan Monplaisir to surve" feT r 197::' on November 19, 1986 the land was duly entered on ~and ~egister in her name and i was only on December 1, 1993 when 3 1 of 1989 was instituted that she first became aware of any spute to her title. Ornan Monplaisir stated that when he surveyed t land accordance with the boundaries stated in che Defendanc/s deed of sale Altenor Joseph was present representing the heirs Fessal. He said there were no obj ections to the and he recorded this in the memorandum to the an of survey. s i :~::hibit 4 of the Plaintiffs' list and JVB 2 of Defendant I 1 st. The Plaintiffs filed three affidavits to t of Defendant on May 31, 1996. One was by St slaus Fessal in whi alleged that the Defendant was never in possess the land that during the Registration and tling Proj ect, Al tenor Joseph claimed the excess land on behalf of the Plaintiffs. In another affidavit reply the said Stanislaus Fessal that he has always known Altenor Joseph to be charge of _he lands of Fessal. The third affidavit was by Altenor Joseph who stated he is presently 82 years old and that he categorical denies the allegation by Mr. Ornan Monplaisir that he was present and represented the heirs ot Paul Fessal when Monplaisir was carrying out the survey for the Defendant on December 10, 1975. During his submissions learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs relied on Defendant/s deed which said she purchased 1/2 of one carre of land in 1965 but by 1975 she ended up wich over six acres Counsel submitted that the excess property to laintiffs. Counsel further submitted that Al~enor u was charge of the land for the Plaintiffs and he present when OrnaL 1VJonplaisir surveyed for the '.Jef Counsel said the i _j~nction was necessary to rest De who is in her seventi~s and s half of he.' c outside f Lucia. Counsel made reference to David Bean's sixth t on unct pages 4, 29 and 30 and to the rd tion of's Laws England, Volume 15, page 184, paragraphs 357 358 to urge the matter was not res judicata. In his reply, learned Counsel for t Defendant refe to the fact that the Defe.::,,~::.:::: :"s the regist or of land in question and he mentioned the American case, 1975 A.C. 396. Counsel submitted that the aintiffs no 1 right to protect and he based that proposit upon Section 23 Land Registration Act. Counsel then submitted that under Article 2103 of c r the Defendant's rights are prescribed since she in 1965 the case against her was only filed in March of 1996. Counsel then submitted that even if there is no prescript the matter is res judicata and in this context he referred to the cases: l. ABUAkA v. ADANSE 1957 3 A.I::;J:{ 559; 561; 2. SUSANA ISIDORE v. GEORGE, 1 Appe , No. 20/1989 delivered May 28, 1990; 3. v. A.G. Civil Appeal 10 of 1993, Page 13. Counsel made mention of laches and gave the re from sburyls Laws of England, Fourth edition, Volume 16, paragraph 1478. Counsel finally submitted that there was no reasonable success for the Plaintiffs in this caE~. T do not take too seriously the submi~~jon that if ~he Court were to g-ant the injunction it would be sett as the De IS and .:ertificate outside of the method for sett.lS land certificates. n BARBARA KIDDELL v. WINDJAMMER LANDING CO. LTD. i on May 1, 1995, I referred to the American Cyanamid case and asked the stion at page 12: "Has the Applicant established that she has an e claim o the right to put up an elect post on the land ::'n quest II and I also referred to the case SMI'T'~I :::NNER LONDON EDUCATION AUTHORITY 1 AER 411 C.A. and to the is of the Court that in the circumstances the case there was no project of the parents succeeding in the cl at the t t is to these questions and/or findings that I should now direct attention. Have the Fessals established thac an arguable claim to the injunction they seek? Do they a ect of succeeding in their claim at the trial of t s act t seems to me that the Plaintiffs main attack or one of them is rected at the fact that according to the Defendant's she purchased 1/2 carre of land which is about 1.6 acres and she ends up with over 6 acres and therefore they contend the excess Land belongs to them. But that is not necessarily so. could very well be an error in quantum not only in the Defendant's deed but in the earlier deeds submitted by the Plaintiffs, that is, Exhibits 5, 8 and 9. It is by no means uncommon in this country that the boundaries in the deed do not match acreage given. The Plaintiffs are themselves admitting that Altenor Joseph was charge of the lands for t~em but in their statement of and fidavit they make the excuse that when Def 's and was ing surveyed they were out of the State and cculd not ect heir interests. They cannot be truthful here. believe Altenor when he said in paragraph 9 of his affidavit as agent for :he Fessals ~le pointed out to Ornan Monpl s boundaries of the Fessai's land during the survey. The ant survey is Exhibit 3, a plan for 13 acres 39.57 drawn on May 23, 1983. In his memorandum sir states lines were run and as instructed oint Al tenor Johannes Joseph. The Defendant's survey an was ready drawn e years p:: 01..:s1-:/ on December 10, 1975 and I believe what lS stat memorandum and confirmed by Ornan Monplaisir's affi t present at that survey besides Johannes Joseph, was Altenor Joseph representing the heirs of Paul Fessal. have not seen the Plaintiffs' land certificate but in my judgment in Suit 321 of 1989 it was pointed out at page 13 on 986 the ?essals were awarded provisional title to 5.50 ctares and. That. seems to be in accordance with the acreage on aintiffs' survey an drawn on May 25, 1983. note that it was on the said November 19, 1986 that the Defendant was awarded absolute title to 2.50 ctares of :and. At paragraph 11 of their statement of claim the aintiffs lege hat the excess lands were erroneously and mistakenly ent in the name of the Defendant. I would reject that. contention from a egal stand point on the authority of SKELTON v. 7 W.I.R. 177 which I mentioned at t~le end of page 13 of udgment in Suit 321 of 1989. would reject the idea stake from a f stand paragraphs 9 and 10 of the statement of claim. PI iffs state that ~emarcated the excess ~ands and t it. The land ~djudicators must rejected their clalm and the land to the D~tpnuant with absolute title. is no stake about that. November 19, 1986 the Plaintiffs got s title to 09 and they must have been aware that their claim to he excess ands was rejected and land was awarded to the De The Plaintiffs did not challenge the findings of the udicator as they were entitled to do. The excuse they gave net appeal is stat o 15 of their statement of claim. In short t are had to await the outcome of a case titut t and ir parcel of land by a third party. s is preposterous. two matters are not connect at all.

November 19, 1986 the Plaintiffs got provision title to parcel

9.On the same day the Defendant absolute title to parcel

08.Three years ater one Clifford sought to challenge t titles f both the PI iffs and the Defendant in Suit ':21 f 1989. Before the hearing the suit against che Defendant a e hers was stopped. So in effect the lenge was against the Plaintiffs' clcle. n any case why could not the Plaintiffs challenge the Defendant's title before suit 321 of 1989 was instituted on October 27, 1989? In Suit 321 of 1989 Fe'ssals were success 0n trength of their title which the other side were to challenge. In that case stated the foll "But I do not think s my business co dec c quescion f ownership of the land or to udicate on ~he respective cla f the Parties. That was the ior of che fficer who gave a ruling against whic~l the Plaintiff d f he was dissatisfied. How can the Plaintiff ~n this suit ask me to her title to lail.d the Adjudicat Officer gave to the De as aid the Adjudicating Officer did not consider cia is effect asking me to determine an issue which the Act t hands of the Adjudicating ficer, the Land Adjudication and the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff should have appealed to the relevant s established by the Land Adjudicat Act in e with decision of SKELTON v. SKELTON (1986) W.I.R. -977. action is dismissed with costs to the Def to De or taxed. " The Plaintiffs are seeking to do these proceedings ~ust what their opponents in suit 321 of 1989 sought to do unsuccessfully. d Bean in his work already referred ,-,..., ~V stated at page 4 the flowing: "There s one overriding requirement: ::::: icant :nust a cause of action in law entitling him to substant r:.l.ie.f"; IIPutting it another way, the Plaintiff will fail if he cannot show that he has any real prospect of succeeding ~n s claim for a permanent unction." .•.. +------ The action of the ?laintiffs is premised on a point of which I have determined several times before and Suit 321 1989 I referred to such a case where I had given a similar is on same day. my judgment the Plaintiffs have no real prospecc f su~ their claim at the t al and I therefore refusp c of ~ interlocutory unction with costs in che cause ~avour 0f che Defendant.

A.N.J. MATTHEW

Puisne

Suit No. 194 of 1996 Matthew, J Delivered: 19/06/96