Meredale Telesford et Al v Cheryl Antoine et Al

• Jurisdiction: Grenada
• Judge: Actie, J.
• Judgment Date: 19 November 2024
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2024] ECSC J1119-1
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2023/0328
• Court: High Court (Grenada)

Between:

[1] Meredale Telesford

[2] Brenda Lynn Moodoo

Claimants

and

[1] Cheryl Antoine

[2] Joseph Fraser

Defendants

Before:

The Hon. Mde. Justice Agnes Actie High Court Judge

CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2023/0328

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA

AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL)

Appearances:

Ms. Deborah Mitchell for the Claimants

Ms. Sheriba Lewis for the Defendants

RULING

Actie, J.

1 This claim concerns the ownership of land situate at Pomme Rose, St. David.

Background

2 By indenture dated 20 ^th September 2021 Angella Fisher conveyed to the first claimant a lot of land measuring Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-four Square Feet (5,994 Sq. Ft.) (hereafter referred to as “the disputed land”). By deed of gift dated 26 ^th May 2023 the first claimant conveyed an interest to the property to the second claimant.

3 The claimants aver that in or about November 2022, the defendants encroached on the disputed land and constructed a wooden building which houses vicious dogs. The claimants state that they are prevented from erecting their dwelling house on the disputed land due to the presence of the defendants resulting in loss and damage.

4 The claimants in a claim form filed on 27 ^th June 2023 seeks among other things, a declaration that they are the owners of the disputed land, an order that the defendants pull down and remove the wooden building and deliver up possession of the disputed land, an order restraining the defendants from any further acts of trespass, damages for trespass and costs.

Defendants' case

5 The defendants were the original paper title holders of the disputed land. The defendants by deed of conveyance dated 11 ^th March 1998 conveyed the disputed land to one Francis Hector. Francis Hector mortgaged the disputed land to RBTT Bank Grenada Limited. By Deed of Gift dated 28 ^th April 2006, RBTT Bank Grenada Limited and Francis Hector conveyed the disputed to Angella Fisher. On 20 ^th September 2021, Angella Fisher conveyed the disputed land to the first claimant.

6 The defendants contend that the claimants' title is invalid. They assert that Francis Hector, to whom the disputed property was transferred in 1998, did not pay the full consideration for the transaction. The defendants argue that Angella Fisher, who was then in a relationship with Mr. Hector, was not a bona fide purchaser for value since Ms. Fisher was aware of Mr. Hector's non-payment of the purchase price. The defendants assert that no valid title passed to Angella Fisher to convey to the claimants.

7 The defendants further assert that the claimants' predecessor in title discontinued possession of the land since the year 2006. The defendants alternatively claim that they have been in continuous and exclusive possession of the disputed land from 1997 and accordingly the claim is statute barred, and the claimant's title is extinguished pursuant to the Limitations Act CAP 173.

8 The defendants' counterclaim for a declaration that they are the owners in fee simple of the disputed land and costs.

The trial

9 The second defendant did not file a witness statement. The first defendant in her witness statement states that the defendants were unaware that they had transferred ownership of the disputed land to Francis Hector. The first defendant states “we have never been paid for the land as far as we are concerned it remained ours and no one else including Francis Hector, had a right to claim it or remove us from it”.

10 However, the second defendant in cross examination states that Francis Hector made a part payment of $10,000.00 to the second defendant. The first defendant further stated that the 2 ^nd defendant did not give her any part of the $10,000.00 that he received from Francis Hector.

Legal Analysis

Whether the claimants hold valid paper title to the disputed land

11 The main issue arising from the evidence elicited from the first defendant's suggests that the predecessor in title did not pay the full agreed price. However, the deed of conveyance by the defendants to the Francis Hector, predecessor in title, registered in the Deeds and Land Registry reads:

“NOW THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH that in consideration of the sum of Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-two Dollars (17,982.00) Eastern Caribbean Currency paid by the Purchaser to the Vendors (the receipt of which sum the Vendors hereby acknowledge)…”

12 The deed is taken to accurately reflect the full transaction between the defendants and Francis Hector. The deed clearly indicates that the defendants acknowledged receipt of the purchase price but does not state any sum due and owing on the transaction. The defendants signed the deed which is witnessed by one Delores Julien.

13 Michel JA in Marlon Mills v Stacey McKie 1 had the following to say on paper titles:

“[24] Title, in the context of property, refers to the right which a person has to the ownership of the property. …Title may also be established by a document which specifies the property to which it refers, the person who is asserting the right to it, and the manner in which that right was acquired – whether by grant, by assignment, by purchase or otherwise. In the case of a purchase, the document should also contain the name of the vendor and the price or other consideration for which the property was sold.

[25] The document establishing title may be a deed or other note in writing. A deed is a specific legal instrument signed, attested, delivered and, in some jurisdictions, sealed by the person transferring the property right to another person. A note in writing may be any written document, whether or not accompanied by any specific formalities…”

14 The predecessors' titles deed provides evidence of details of the delivery and acceptance of the title upon payment of the agreed consideration. Ms Deborah Mitchell, counsel for the claimants, relies on the court's decision in Rice v Rice 2, which was applied in the case of Rimmer v Webster 3 in the following terms:

“If the owner of property clothes another person with the apparent ownership and right of disposition thereof by not merely transferring it to him, but also by acknowledging that the transferee had paid him the consideration for it, he is estopped from asserting his title as against a person to whom such third party has disposed of it, and who took it in good faith and for value. ( Rice v Rice 1854, 2 Drew, 73) is a good illustration. If a man acknowledges that he has received the whole of the purchase money from the person to whom he transfers the property, he ‘voluntarily arms the purchaser with the means of dealing with the estate as the absolute legal and equitable owner free from any shadow of incumbrance or adverse equity’ (p 83), and he cannot be heard to say that he never in fact received such purchase money.”

15 Ms Mitchell argues further the defendants' case is that of an unpaid vendor's equitable lien. However, the purported equitable lien which is not documented cannot bind a bona fide purchaser of the legal estate for value who did not have notice of the unpaid vendor's equitable lien.

16 Counsel further relies on Pilcher v Rawlins 4 where Sir W.M. James LJ stated:

“I propose simply to apply myself to the case of a purchaser for valuable consideration, without notice, obtaining, upon the occasion of his purchase, and by means of his purchase deed, some legal estate, some legal right, some legal advantage; and, according to my view of the established law of this Court, such a purchaser's plea of a purchase...