Angelo Bellot Caveator/Claimant v Alfred Walter Theodore Yankey Caveatee/Respondent [ECSC]

JurisdictionCaribbean States
CourtEastern Caribbean Supreme Court
JudgeLEWIS, C.J., Chief Justice
Judgment Date19 Mar 1970
Neutral Citation[1970] ECSC J0319-1
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No. 6 of 1968
[1970] ECSC J0319-1



The Honourable the Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Gordon

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard (Ag.)

Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1968

Angelo Bellot
Alfred Walter Theodore Yankey

Claimant in person

Vanya Dupigny and J.M.B. Armour for respondent


This is a claim under section 170 of the Title by Registration Ordinance, Cap. 222, for the decision of the trial judge in a matter of a caveat to be reviewed by this Court. I say by this Court though really the claim was made to the High Court and this Court has now assumed this particular jurisdiction to review such decisions.


The matter arises in connection with an application of Alfred Walter Yankey as personal representative of the Estate of Caffyn Alexander Walsh for the issue of a first certificate of title in respect of a portion of land forming part of Mount Pleasant Estate in the parish of St. Paul in the State of Dominica, containing 38.065 acres. That application was accompanied by a plan by surveyor Winski showing the portion of land applied for and by affidavits setting out the facts on which the applicant claimed that he was owner in fee simple of the land by virtue of long possession—over 30 years.


After due advertisement, the claimant Bellot put in a caveat and this matter eventually reached the High Court. The caveat follows Form 2 and the Forms at the back of the Ordinance, which is the form to be used where there has been nocertificate of title issued in respect of a portion of land and the person who is cautioning the Registrar says that he intends himself to apply for a certificate of title to the portion of land because he claims to be the legal owner of it. This was not applicable to the present situation because the true objection made by the claimant was not that the whole of the land which was applied for belonged to him, but that there had been some encroachment by the surveyor on his adjoining land, so that a portion of land which is contained in his certificate of title to the adjoining lands is now included by Winski as part of the land in respect of which the application for a new certificate is made.


I would like to say here that it is important that the High Court, before it proceeds to hear a matter in connection with a caveat, should ensure that the caveator defines precisely what it is that he is alleging and the grounds on which he opposes the issue of the certificate, and narrows the issues of fact which the Court has to decide. This is particularly important in this case because as a result of the very loose way in which the caveat was worded and the evidence was presented, the learned judge seems to have fallen into a certain degree of error; and also because on the hearing of this claim for review the caveator has attempted to persuade this Court that even if the land in respect of which he claims now falls outside his certificate of title he is nevertheless entitled to it. Now the only issue really between the parties was whether a portion of the land shown on Winski's survey fell within the land covered by the claimant's certificate of title.


The Court has looked at the claimant's certificate of title and the plan attached to it, to which he became entitled in 1947. It appears that the first certificate for his land was issued some time in 1918, and to that certificate...

To continue reading

Request your trial