Nathaniel Thomas Appellant v Alfred Fakoory Respondent [ECSC]

CourtEastern Caribbean Supreme Court
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No. 3 of 1972
JudgeLOUISY, J.A. (Ag.), ST. BERNARD, J.A., ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Judgment Date25 Jan 1973
JurisdictionCaribbean States
Neutral Citation[1973] ECSC J0125-1
[1973] ECSC J0125-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable the Acting Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

The Honourable Mr. Justice Louisy (Ag.)

Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1972

Between:
Nathaniel Thomas
Appellant
and
Alfred Fakoory
Respondent

K. Radix for Appellant

G. Clyne for Respondent

LOUISY, J.A. (Ag.)
1

On the 9th September, 1971 the appellant filed a claim against the respondent in the Magistrate's Court, Southern District, asking for recovery of possession of the ground floor of premises owned by him in Halifax Street in the town of St. George. The appellant served a notice on the respondent to quit and deliver up possession of the ground floor on the 30th September 1968. The appellant's reason, for giving the respondent notice is that the said premises have deteriorated and are required for the purpose of being rebuilt. The claim came on for hearing before the magistrate of the Sourthen District in due course and on the 6th of April, 1972 the magistrate made the following order: "order refused—costs to the defendant $50.00"

2

From this order the appellant has appealed on the grounds that (1) the decision of the learned magistrate was unreasonable having regard to the evidence and (2) the learned magistrate erred in law in that he failed properly and/or correctly to construe and/or interpret section 13(3) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance Chapter 259 of the Revised Laws of Grenada, 1958.

3

Counsel for the appellant only argued the second ground and he based his argument on the report from hue Chief Health Officer in respect of the building. Paragraph 4 of the report states that the building is in such a state of disrepair that it is injurious to health; the report further states that (a) the roof is defective (b) the floor is rotten and broken in many parts, (c) some windows and doors are defective, broken and unhinged and there are many cracks in the walls. Counsel further relied on the evidence or Mr. Keens Douglas as to the state of the building and also on a report submitted by Mr. Keens Douglas which states that: (1) the "roof galvanize" is rotten and holed and the wooden framework and ceiling are rotten, (2) on the first floor all the windows are completely rotted and broken away and the building is open to the elements. The floor is completely rotted and dangerous. (3) The Wooden partitions are in the same rotten condition. There are no doors to this floor. (4) On the ground floor a wooden ceiling...

To continue reading

Request your trial