NATHANIEL OTTLEY v DANIEL ANDREWS

- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES (CIVIL) A.D. 1990 SUIT NO. 437 of 1988 BETWEEN: NATHANIEL OTTLEY PLAINTIFF AND DANIEL ANDREWS ..,.-... 'DEFENDANT I '. ~ d T Mr. V. Cuffy for the Plaintiff j' • I , . Mrs. K. Bacchus-Gill for the Defendant.

1._...... r1r"O'~''''-';-''-I'' ,(/ .. .\- I l 1990: November 5 and 12. JUDGMENT MATTHEW J. The Plaintiff commenced proceedlngs against the Defenuant all October 7, 1988 claiming possession of a portion of land from the Defendant and other associated relief. The Defendant entered appearance on October 18, 1988 and filed a defence and counterclaim on November 10, 1988 denying possession of the Plaintiff's land and asking for a declaration that he is the owner of the land on which his father's house is situated and injunctive relief against the Plaintiff. The case was set down for trial on Harch 31, 1989. The Plaintiff claims a portion of land by deed of sale no. 603 of 1985 executed on Harch 11, 1985 between his father Esau Thomas and himself. The extent of the land is 1 rood and the boundaries show that on the East the land is bounded by lands of Vincent Andrews, the father of the Defendant and the person from whom he chdms. Plaintiff also tendered in evidence deed 891 of 1982 whereby his I'nt:lln Esau Thomas made a declaration to t1H~ effl'ct that he lind pun.:II;lsl·d the 1:Jlld from Stanley Prescott on November 16, 1950. I? ,. . -2­ The Plaintiff stated that Vincent Andrews simply placed his h011se "on his land. The Plaintiff has not produced any plan to identify the extent of land he has in his possession. He states under cross-examination that one rood contains three lots of land and he has in his possession 13/4 lots and the Defendant has I! lots of his land. Plaintiff stated that he never lived with his father but whenever he visited from time to time his father and Vincent Andrews were "always fighting concerning the land. 1I This statement I would observe is qui.te vague, The Plaintiff's only witness was Ray Me Fee on whose evidence mucl. reliance was'placed by learned Counsel for Plaintiff. Me Fee's evidel1ce is to the effect that Vincent Andrews [trst rented the place on \"hich his IlOune is presently located and wa~ chased away to Belmont after a baillrJ" broke down the house and put it on the road and sometime after Vincent Andre"J::; replaced the house on the said location. He also said that Esnu thomns the subsequent owner of the land fought with Vincent Andrews over lHendf nd ls. Although Me Fee gave evidence in chief quite straight fon-/ard .."hen 11(~ \,'ns being cross-examined he displayed [l cer.tain host:tli ty or hesitallcy ·,]11 i (;h affects the weight of his evidence. He could not give the Court any idt:1 of the year about which he was gi lIing evidence. He did not e'len knOT., whether the matters occurred last year. The Defendant stated that he was born in December 1956 Oil the li1l1d and in the same house which, though badly delapidated, is still 011 tile 1:111,1. He said he does not get along with Ray He Fee who Is related to hJm. 1I'.~ stated that he never knew the house to be moved from its location or ttl:1!: anybody was claiming the land until he got the Plaintiff's letter ill 1987. The Defendant stated he received the land from his father who i 11 L'll'll received it from his mother. He tendered in evidence deed ?'{I(,S/197 ft (':-:ec"U~d on December 30, 1974 \vhereby Vlncent Andre\Vs declared that he had l"'~.;l1i II uninterrupted possession of land containing two lots more or less for n pertod of twenty ye~.'Irs more or less. The ))I~fendnnt st<l.tpd tlwt [-lwl".' i ,­ row of white draggon that separates his land from .3 V[lC[lllt piece f) r I ;tlH! adjoining the Plaintiff's land. When Defendant was cross-exam:Lned he stated tlwt from the born till he got married fil1'c years <lp'O he Iived in th;lt lWlIse. / :I ••..•. -3­ . ­ Defendant denied that the Plaintiff ever barred the road to delly him access. The Defendant was supported by his half-sister Viola Rivierre who was born in 1933. She stated that she lived in the house with her stepfather Vincent Andrews from the time she was 10 until she was 21 years old and she never he'ard any dispute over her stepfather's land before the present action. She said she knew the Plaintiff's father Esau Thomas who lived next to her stepfather. The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to establisll that the land occupied by the Defendant is his property. lIe has not produced any p 1J1ll of survey and there is nothing in his deed to identify the land on the ground. When he was first cross-examined he said he had no knowledg0 that Vincent Andrews had land next to his until he was shown his deed Clnd he accepted Vincent borders with his land on the East. Plaintiff admitted tllnt Defendant was born in the particular house. He himself gave no evidence that the house ever left there. Ray He Fee cannot help with the (hte ..·.dlen he said he saw the house was moved. I believe the Defendant and Viola Rlvierre that t-1c Fee is not ('n good terms with the Defendant. 1. do not believe Hc Fee is a truthflll \,'Jr:I1/CSS and I reject his evidence that he saw Vincent Andrews' housp- hrokpTl ,llld pill on the side of the road or that Vincent and Esau fought over breadfruits or the row of white draggons. I do not believe the Plaintiff that he ever dug the Defendnllt' s rO<ld whatever may be the value of thts hlt of ('videllce. I. formed ;t fnV\lllnlh I t' impression of Viola Rivierre and I believe her that she lived in tilat hou~~e in or about 1943 even though by 1974 Vincent Andrews was declaring lIe W~R in undisturbed possession for about 20 years more or less. I find therefore that from about 1954 Plaintiff or his predecesfHlr in title had not taken any effective action to gain possession from the Defendant or his predecessor in title until Plaintiff caused a letter to be written to the Dp.fendant in 1987. I believe too that from the time he was born iII 1956 till till! year of his marriage in 1985 the Defendant lived on the l.alld and he sm,) 11'.1 ev Ld"ll('C of a claim of ownership to the land which he has inherited from his r:.lth(~l. -4­ So Plaintiff has not on a balance of probabilities established that he or his father was ever in possession of the Defendant's lUlld or that the portion of land the Defendant occupies was ever in his conveyance. I find that the Defendant and his predecessor in title have been in undisturbed possession of that land for over thirty years before the 1987 letter which preceeded this action. The Plaintiff's suit is accordingly dismissed and I declare tllat the portion of land on which the Defendant's house W<lS located J5 Idl: Jlropl'l:ty. The Plaintiff is to pay the costs of this action to be taxed, if not agreed. /

– IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES (CIVIL) A.D. 1990 SUIT NO. 437 of 1988 BETWEEN: NATHANIEL OTTLEY PLAINTIFF AND DANIEL ANDREWS ..,.-… 'DEFENDANT I ‘. ~ d T Mr. V. Cuffy for the Plaintiff j' • I ,. Mrs. K. Bacchus-Gill for the Defendant. ,(/.. .-I l

1._…… r1r”O’~””-‘;-”-I” 1990: November 5 and 12. JUDGMENT MATTHEW J. The Plaintiff commenced proceedlngs against the Defenuant all October 7, 1988 claiming possession of a portion of land from the Defendant and other associated relief. The Defendant entered appearance on October 18, 1988 and filed a defence and counterclaim on November 10, 1988 denying possession of the Plaintiff’s land and asking for a declaration that he is the owner of the land on which his father’s house is situated and injunctive relief against the Plaintiff. The case was set down for trial on Harch 31, 1989. The Plaintiff claims a portion of land by deed of sale no. 603 of 1985 executed on Harch 11, 1985 between his father Esau Thomas and himself. The extent of the land is 1 rood and the boundaries show that on the East the land is bounded by lands of Vincent Andrews, the father of the Defendant and the person from whom he chdms. Plaintiff also tendered in evidence deed 891 of 1982 whereby his I’nt:lln Esau Thomas made a declaration to t1H~ effl’ct that he lind pun.:II;lsl·d the 1:Jlld from Stanley Prescott on November 16, 1950. I? ,. . -2The Plaintiff stated that Vincent Andrews simply placed his h011se “on his land. The Plaintiff has not produced any plan to identify the extent of land he has in his possession. He states under cross-examination that one rood contains three lots of land and he has in his possession 13/4 lots and the Defendant has I! lots of his land. Plaintiff stated that he never lived with his father but whenever he visited from time to time his father and Vincent Andrews were “always fighting concerning the land. 1I This statement I would observe is qui.te vague, The Plaintiff’s only witness was Ray Me Fee on whose evidence mucl. reliance was’placed by learned Counsel for Plaintiff. Me Fee’s evidel1ce is to the effect that Vincent Andrews [trst rented the place on \”hich his IlOune is presently located and wa~ chased away to Belmont after a baillrJ” broke down the house and put it on the road and sometime after Vincent Andre”J::; replaced the house on the said location. He also said that Esnu thomns the subsequent owner of the land fought with Vincent Andrews over lHendf nd ls. Although Me Fee gave evidence in chief quite straight fon-/ard ..”hen 11(~ \,’ns being cross-examined he displayed [l cer.tain host:tli ty or hesitallcy ·,]11 i (;h affects the weight of his evidence. He could not give the Court any idt:1 of the year about which he was gi lIing evidence. He did not e’len knOT., whether the matters occurred last year. The Defendant stated that he was born in December 1956 Oil the li1l1d and in the same house which, though badly delapidated, is still 011 tile 1:111,1. He said he does not get along with Ray He Fee who Is related to hJm. 1I’.~ stated that he never knew the house to be moved from its location or ttl:1!: anybody was claiming the land until he got the Plaintiff’s letter ill 1987. The Defendant stated he received the land from his father who i 11 L’ll’ll received it from his mother. He tendered in evidence deed ?'{I(,S/197 ft (‘:-:ec”U~d on December 30, 1974 \vhereby Vlncent Andre\Vs declared that he had l”‘~.;l1i II uninterrupted possession of land containing two lots more or less for n pertod of twenty ye~.’Irs more or less. The ))I~fendnnt st<l.tpd tlwt [-lwl”.’ i ,row of white draggon that separates his land from .3 V[lC[lllt piece f) r I ;tlH! adjoining the Plaintiff’s land. When Defendant was cross-exam:Lned he stated tlwt from the I:JlIl(~ he.’ ‘.7″1,.: born till he got married fil1’c years <lp’O he Iived in th;lt lWlIse. ‘I tIC’ / :I ••..•. -3. Defendant denied that the Plaintiff ever barred the road to delly him access. The Defendant was supported by his half-sister Viola Rivierre who was born in 1933. She stated that she lived in the house with her stepfather Vincent Andrews from the time she was 10 until she was 21 years old and she never he’ard any dispute over her stepfather’s land before the present action. She said she knew the Plaintiff’s father Esau Thomas who lived next to her stepfather. The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to establisll that the land occupied by the Defendant is his property. lIe has not produced any p 1J1ll of survey and there is nothing in his deed to identify the land on the ground. When he was first cross-examined he said he had no knowledg0 that Vincent Andrews had land next to his until he was shown his deed Clnd he accepted Vincent borders with his land on the East. Plaintiff admitted tllnt Defendant was born in the particular house. He himself gave no evidence that the house ever left there. Ray He Fee cannot help with the (hte ..·.dlen he said he saw the house was moved. I believe the Defendant and Viola Rlvierre that t-1c Fee is not (‘n good terms with the Defendant. 1. do not believe Hc Fee is a truthflll \,’Jr:I1/CSS and I reject his evidence that he saw Vincent Andrews’ housp-hrokpTl ,llld pill on the side of the road or that Vincent and Esau fought over breadfruits or the row of white draggons. I do not believe the Plaintiff that he ever dug the Defendnllt’ s rO<ld whatever may be the value of thts hlt of (‘videllce. I. formed ;t fnV\lllnlh It’ impression of Viola Rivierre and I believe her that she lived in tilat hou~~e in or about 1943 even though by 1974 Vincent Andrews was declaring lIe W~R in undisturbed possession for about 20 years more or less. I find therefore that from about 1954 Plaintiff or his predecesfHlr in title had not taken any effective action to gain possession from the Defendant or his predecessor in title until Plaintiff caused a letter to be written to the Dp.fendant in 1987. I believe too that from the time he was born iII 1956 till till! year of his marriage in 1985 the Defendant lived on the l.alld and he sm,) 11′.1 ev Ld”ll(‘C of a claim of ownership to the land which he has inherited from his r:.lth(~l. -4So Plaintiff has not on a balance of probabilities established that he or his father was ever in possession of the Defendant’s lUlld or that the portion of land the Defendant occupies was ever in his conveyance. I find that the Defendant and his predecessor in title have been in undisturbed possession of that land for over thirty years before the 1987 letter which preceeded this action. The Plaintiff’s suit is accordingly dismissed and I declare tllat the portion of land on which the Defendant’s house W<lS located J5 Idl: Jlropl’l:ty. The Plaintiff is to pay the costs of this action to be taxed, if not agreed. /