Roylyn Nyack v Trevor Booker
| Jurisdiction | Caribbean States |
| Judge | Actie, J. |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2023 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2023] ECSC J1220-4 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2021/0004 |
| Court | Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court |
| Year | 2023 |
The Hon. Mde. Justice Agnes Actie High Court Judge
CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2021/0004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA
AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CIVIL)
Mr. Deloni Edwards for the Claimant
Mr. Derick Sylvester for the Defendant
The claimant's claim filed on 4 th January 2021 seeks damages for trespass and an injunction restraining the defendant from entering a plot of land situate at Dunfermline Estate, St. Andrew. The court is of the view that the claimant's claimed is statute barred for the following reasons given in the judgment.
Wilberforce Nyack, deceased, (hereafter referred to as “the deceased”), became the owner of Two Hundred Acres of land situate at Dunfermline Estate, St. Andrew (hereafter referred to as “the estate”) by virtue of a deed of conveyance dated 31 st March 1980.
The claimant, as administratrix of the estate, avers that the defendant is a former worker of the estate, and that in the year 2003, the deceased sold One Thousand Six Hundred Square Feet (1,600 Sq. Ft.) of land situate at the estate to the defendant. The claimant avers that the defendant requested that he be permitted to purchase a further Three Roods and Six Poles (3 Rds. 6 Pls.) of land situate at the estate, but that he never completed the purchase. The claimant avers however that after the defendant's request, the deceased permitted the defendant to plant stools of plantain on the edge of the Dunfermline River on a lot which belonged to the estate.
The claimant contends that in or about the year 2013, after the death of the deceased, the defendant planted fruit trees between the plantain stools without permission, and that in or about the year 2016, the defendant planted more trees on the strip of the deceased's land, erected pipelines, and is preventing the claimant's workers from accessing the strip of land from the river.
The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to the land in dispute or to claim for the same. He further denies requesting to purchase an additional Three Roods and Six Poles (3 Rds. 6 Pls.) of land situate at the estate as alleged.
The defendant states that the land which he occupies (hereafter referred to as “the disputed lot”) has always been in the possession of his parents, Eileen Booker and Lawrence Booker who worked on the disputed lot exclusively until about 1985 or until their death. The defendant states that afterwards his brother, Davidson Roberts, continued to work on the disputed lot, and subsequently himself. He states that the disputed lot has always been worked since the “Land for the Landless” programme was run by Prime Minister Gairy in the late 1960s, early 1970s. The disputed lot was cut out of a larger lot and given to the defendant's parents for their sole use and occupation.
The defendant thus avers that he has been occupying the land for more than twenty-eight (28) years without permission from the deceased or any other person. The defendant further contends alternatively that if the disputed lot forms part of the estate, then the claimant's claim is statute barred by virtue of Sections 4 and 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
The defendant's main contention is that the disputed lot does not form part of the claimant's land. However, the evidence of Licensed Land Surveyor, Godwin Alexis in a Survey Report dated 4 th November 2022, states that in the absence of documentation indicating otherwise, the disputed lot, which is a strip of land by the river and the subject matter of this action forms part of the Dunfermline Estate. The court accepts the evidence.
Halsbury's Laws of England 1 sets out the principles concerning trespass as follows:
“A person's unlawful presence on land in the possession of another is a trespass for which a claim may be brought, even though no actual damage is done. A person trespasses upon land if he wrongfully sets foot on it, rides or drives over it or takes possession of it, or expels the person in possession, or pulls down or destroys anything permanently fixed to it, or wrongfully takes minerals from it, or places or fixes anything on it or in it, or if he erects or suffers to continue on his own land anything which invades the airspace of another.”
It is the claimant's claim that the defendant in 2003 requested the sale of further Three Roods Six Poles (3 Rds. 6 Pls.) but he never completed the sale. Following the request, the defendant was given permission to plant plantains. The claimant
asserts that prior to the permission, part of the land was worked by the defendant's parents and the other part by his uncleThe claimant states that the disputed lot is part of a larger lot which was divided in two and that the defendant's parents were given a licence to plant on the disputed lot, while the defendant's uncle was given permission to plant on the other lot. This is supported by evidence of Johnson Booker, brother of the defendant and witness for the claimant, which states that his parents, Eileen Booker and Lawrence Booker worked the bottom half of the larger lot, and another family, Everest and Elaine, worked the upper half.
The claimant states that the defendant's parents were not authorized to harvest cocoa trees along the road of the disputed lot, or the coconut trees or cane thereon, and that no permanent crops were to be planted. The claimant states that these were also the conditions of the permission that was granted to the defendant in his working of the disputed lot after he approached the deceased to obtain same in 2003.
The claimant states that it was in or about the year 2013, after the death of the deceased that the defendant planted fruit trees, which are permanent trees, on the disputed lot. The claimant further states that in 2016, the defendant planted more fruit trees and ran pipelines from the river onto the disputed lot to water his plants.
Johnson Booker, brother of the defendant, states that his mother died in 1985 and father in 1995 respectively. He said that he remained on premises and planted short crops then migrated to Trinidad and returned in 1989. Upon his return, he found his elder brother Davidson Roberts in occupation of the land planting crops and rearing pigs followed by the defendant when Davidson stopped cultivating. He further stated that the defendant continued to plant the entire strip after Everest and Elaine's death and committed acts to prevent estate workers from entering the property.
The court finds on the evidence that the defendant has been in occupation of the land through his parents who had been in occupation of the land prior to the deceased obtaining title to the property in 1980. The licence granted by the previous title owner would have terminated when the deceased obtained title to the disputed lot. It is the evidence that the defendant's parents remained on the property until their demise and occupation...
To continue reading
Request your trial