Crawford & Crawford v Ramnarine et Al

• Jurisdiction: Caribbean States
• Judge: Lewis, J.
• Judgment Date: 02 December 1959
• Court: Federal Supreme Court (West Indies)
• Docket Number: Appellate Jurisdiction No. 11 of 1959
• Date: 02 December 1959

Federal Supreme Court (On appeal)

Hallinan, C.J., Lewis, J.A. and Marnan, J.A.

Appellate Jurisdiction No. 11 of 1959

Crawford & Crawford

and

Ramnarine et al

Appearances:

Mr. A.T. Peters, instructed by Mr. H.A. Burton, for the defendants-appellants.

Mr. S.D.S. Hardyal, instructed by Mr. R.N. Tiwari, for the plaintiffs-respondents.

Damages - Trespass to land

Lewis, J.

1 In this case the plaintiffs-respondents claimed damages for trespass on certain lands situate on the Corentyne Coast, of which they were owners by transport, and an injunction to restrain the defendants-appellants from further trespassing on or using or occupying any portion of the said lands. The trial judge dealt with the lands in three sections, firstly, a section enclosed by the defendants and on which they had a house, secondly, a section used as a coconut and provision farm, and thirdly, a section used for the cultivation of rice. With regard to the house area he found that the defendants were licensees in exclusive occupation; with regard to the coconut and provision farm area he held that they were using the area in common with and by permission of some of the plaintiffs; and with respect to the rice area he found that they were tenants of the plaintiffs of six acres thereof and that their tenancy was governed by the provisions of the Rice Farmers (Security of Tenure) Ordinance, 1956. His decision was as follows:-

“The plaintiffs have claimed damages for trespass as well as an injunction against the defendants. Finding as I do that up to the time of the action they were not trespassers that portion of their claim must fail. As I regard the license given to the defendants as having been effectively terminated, however, I consider that the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction for which they have asked. The defendants, and/or their agents will therefore be restrained from trespassing or occupying any portion of the land in question save and except the six acres of this land which they have under rice cultivation. This injunction will take effect from the 21 ^st March 1959.”

2 From this decision the defendants appealed on various grounds, all of which were abandoned at the hearing. This Court allowed an amendment to enable the following ground to be argued:-

“That since the judge found that the defendants were licensees in respect of the area occupied by the house, and that there was no trespass, it was not open to him to find that the license was determined or to grant an injunction.”

3 The question for, decision is therefore whether the learned judge was right in granting an injunction.

4 The findings that the defendants were not trespassers up to the time of action but that the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction are inconsistent with each other. The question whether or not the defendants were trespassers in...