JAMES WILLIAMS et al v RITE ETIENNE

~ ~ SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH C0URT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 t No. 141 of BETWEEN:

1.JAMES WILLIAMS

2.ELMINA WI~LAMS PIa iffs 3.1vi RITE ETIENNE Def A. Arthur for PIa C. Landers or Def 1996: January 11 and 16. J U D G MEN T l. MATTHEW J. March 12, 1993 the a ffs fil a writ of summons th statement of cl the foIl ng relief: 1. a unction against the Defendant from trespass t a iff's 2. possess of a lling e;

3.damages;

4.costs. their statement of claim the Plaintiffs a lege that t were at 1 times the owners of a dwell va at $90, situate Petit Bourg in the 1 age of Laborie and t permitted the Defendant to 1 in the bottom floor of that e after she made it livable. The Plaintiffs lege that the Def to the said dwelling house some time after 1991 now aimed ownership of the house. The Defendant entered appearance on March 31, 1993 and fil fence and counterclaim on April 15, 1993. In that Defendant denies the Plaintiff's ownership states t wooden house on the land belonging to r er, lyte and the Second Pla iff, another to ld her a small wall house on the same as a re t she broke down and so the wooden house. She stated that the a iffs without her consent or t consent Mary Hippolyte, the Pla iffs built a two st lding stating that the Defendant would downstairs free rent while Pla iffs would 1 upstairs. said she spent $6,944.50 to make the f oor habit her countercla she for the 1. a declaration t she is t owner of t f of the or alternat $28,544.5 damages; 2. general damages; 3. the costs hereof. Plaintiffs filed a request for on June 8, 1993. EVIDENCE At the trial the Plaintiffs gave evidence led Peter Jean Jules and Everard Louis as witnesses. The Def is 75 years old gave evidence on r own behalf and call r er Hippolyte, as her only witness. James Williams stated that Elmina Williams is his wife and own a wall structure at Laborie valued at $86,000. He said st construction in 1989 but stopped in 1992 when the bui was incomplete. He stated that he made an arrangement with the Defendant and her deceased husband that because their house was not in a good ion he would build a house on the spot where house was located after they had broken down the wooden hOl1se she and her husband would remain the tom floor t house until their deaths. said the Defendant and her husband ent the 92 and they had made improvements to stated that he did not a small the Def e gave r husbAnd. He said so that it was Mary ssion to build the wall house on her and. said his wife and himself are claiming of and he only gave the De and her husband li bottom floor of the He stated Def to that arrangement but she is now claiming owne of a port the house and as a result does not want her to have 1 ife any more. he was cross-examined he agreed t Def et the bottom floor of the house but could not say t the amount to do so was $7,000. admitted that initial Mary Hippolyte al to because she thought he was going to build a smal wall house mother but later he said the plan was and he was a lowed to build a larger house. answer to the Court he said: "She is claiming t house so that is the s I am now suffering" . Williams stated that she did not say she was going to build a house for her mother and the arrangement was that husband would build a house and her mother would remain in a room th her husband until they died. Peter Jean Jules, the building contractor on timated the present value of the structure at $86, o Everard s said he bought the Defendant's $6 was not worth that amount. te Etienne stated that she owned d wooden house at Petit as a result of speaking to ~er erSt and , down the house and sold t to s $6 put a value $8,000 or more on house. stated that Elmina told will dace She said later on: ewas. It "I saw a building going up on the re my wa:3 a wall I s~nt to to see house they were putting up. They sed to Id me a small wall house. She said she eventually went to 1 in bottom floor of 1 house and she made improvements to it r to e to there. She said Elmina never told her about life erest was that she was going to build a small e for She said finally: "I am asking the Court me to the tom of to compensate me for the house they caused me to down II , Hippolyte stated that a concrete house is built on land on the spot where her mother's wooden house was located. She said: "Elmina John is the owner but I know house belongs to my mother. f of belongs to my I agreed that Plaintiff was going to Id the e my mother and she would 1 rs when came Castrles and my mother would 1 downst s final address lEarn~Q Counsel Def t hat based on the se the PIa iffs made the Defendant down her wooden house went to rent somewher~ Ise for s years. said PIa iff gave ss to Def to tom floor livable. Counsel submitted that De changed her position d one form or another get t place is 1 rest life. Learned Counsel for PI iffs tted t the a iffs t he house and gave t Def a life eresti the Def not agree to the construction of the house and so it would be ffi t to est i De were ownership. Counsel then stated as follows: "I submit Defendant was given consent Hippolyte. In terms of rent something was done for her benefit. I ask possess of dwelling house in accordance with the prayer. I ask for possession, not physical possession. refer to Article 394 of the Civil Code." I thought learned Counsel for t a iffs was inconsistent relief. At one t he seems to tt Defendant is entitled only to a usufruct life at another ime he is asking for possession of ses a unction to restrain the Defendant from trespass on P aintiffs' property. Indeed Article 394 he cit is as lows: "Usufruct is the right of using and of ch another has the owners in the same manner as t owner us~s and enjoys t but subj ect to t obI ion of preserving their substance." Plaintiffs' case seems to be t t Def a usufruct for life but because the Defendant s cl are now asking possess s no doubt is t e aintiff in answer to t Court sa was suff loss. of the bases of the Defendant's is t female Plaintiff, her daughter, said she would Id a her but on her own evidence when she saw a b e she called Mary, her other daughter. She must reali the house was not being built her. also asks that she given ownership to e for her wooden house which she had to break down. Plaintiffs did not in fact build a small wall Defendant. I find as a t that the aintiffs It the themselves and they agreed with the Defendant and husband t qive them life interests the bottom storey of t I believe James Williams that the plans for the construction of small house were changed and even Mary seems to have 1 the idea that the Plaintiffs would be living upstairs while mother I downstairs. believe that t PIa iffs, the Defendant and Mary e I to the grant of Ii erests to t Def husband and that it was never agreed that t Def any other interest but a Ii interest in Defendant could only claim ownership of a small as ste c<uld get over the hurdle of the requirement for cons iJn that venture never materialised. The Plaintiffs excess of $80,000 to build ir house evidence of Peter Jean s 3.nd I find they are t owners of the entire wall structure. But I find that this ownership is subject to t De's life erest in the bottom storey. I f was a ssory estoppel as described by the learned of Fourth edit Halsbury's Laws in and, Volume 16 1514. paragraph is as follows: "When one has, s words or conduct to t other a clear and unequivocal promise or assurance which was intended to affect the I relations to be acted on accordingly, then, once other has taken him at his word and acted on it, t one who oromlse or assurance cannot afterwards allowed to revert to previous legal relations as if no such promlse or assurance had been made by him, but must their I re subject to the qualification which he elf so introduced. s doct ch is derived from a e of equity enunciated in 1877, has been ect of considerable recent development and is st I It differs from estoooel in pais in that the representation relied upon need not be one of present fact. The doctrine cannot create any new cause of action where none existed before, and it is subject to the qualification that the other party has altered his position; (2) promisor can resile from his promise on e notice, which need not be a formal notice, t see a reasonable opportunity of resuming his posit t promise only becomes final and e if t see cannot resume s position. doctrine is as "equitable" or "promissory" or "quasi" e 1." The expenses incurred by the Defendant to t ace 1 e are not the responsibility of the a iffs never to pay for them. I believe the intention was t- t De should bear those costs as well as trent alternat accommodation when her house was broken down. se expenses must regarded as part of the package. is no doubt that Defendant was 1 an t e and that was why her daughters were t ter accommodation for her. no now lives more secure accommodation. The old house was sold for $GO LOUlS, purchaser, thought paid too it. reject the Defendant's evidence that her wooden house was valued excess $8,000 and I reject more so all paragraph 8 of the defence and countercla tit was 18,000. dismiss the Plaintiffs cla for possession t accompanying relief. also reject to make a declaration that Defendant is owner of the ground floor of the building. order is: I declare that the Plaintiffs are the owners of t dwell house in question but that is subject to a life erest the bottom storey in favour of the Defendant. [J) 4-J '8: .Jil .... ill · ~ ~ tn · t-i 'lJ .~ ;:::1 · ~ fJ [J) o C) o 4-J . ill · fJ ~ • • [J) · Z-r! • ~;:::1 • "" (:l, [J) m )...j ill 'lJ )...j o o ~ ill ,£1 rl rl m ..c: [J) ill )...j ill ..c: f--i

Suit No. 141 of 1993 Matthew, J Delivered: 16/01/96