Selwyn Pitt v Brian Pitt

• Jurisdiction: Grenada
• Judge: Glasgow, J.
• Judgment Date: 10 November 2021
• Neutral Citation: GD 2021 HC 53
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2016/0423
• Court: High Court (Grenada)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA

AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL)

CLAIM NO. GDAHCV2016/0423

Between:

[1] Selwyn Pitt

[2] Richard Pitt

Claimants

and

Brian Pitt

Defendant

Appearances:

Mr. Ruggles Ferguson for the Claimants

Mrs. Sabrita Khan-Ramdhani for the Defendant

Glasgow, J.

1 This judgment concerns the opposition to an application filed by the defendant (Brian Pitt) on 18 ^th November 2016 in which he sought an order of the court that he is owner of property situate at St. George's, Grenada. Brian Pitt asserts that he became the owner by reason of his exclusive and undisturbed possession of the same for over a period of twelve years. Brian Pitt pursued that application pursuant to the Possessory Titles Act. No. 22 of 2016 (the Act). The claimants are his brothers. This judgment identifies them as “the claimants” or as “Richard Pitt” or “Selwyn Pitt”. On 12 ^th April 2017, the claimants filed this claim in opposition to Brian Pitt's application for possessory title on the grounds that the property belongs to a family company. They contend that their brother never acquired title to the property by adverse possession or at all.

Background

2 Some of the uncontroverted facts provide a helpful background to the present familial rancour. The parties are all the children of Joseph and Edlyn Pitt. They have a sister, Jean Pitt, who is not a party to this claim but she is engaged in it. Jean Pitt is named as one of the executors of her mother, Edlyn Pitt's estate. Brian Pitt is the other named executor, but Jean Pitt obtained probate of their mother's will on 21 ^st August 2015. A document signed by Brian Pitt and dated 16 ^th July 2014 indicates that he thereby renounced his right to obtain probate of the will of Edlyn Pitt.

3 Joseph Pitt was the fee simple owner of the property that is the subject of this suit. In 1974, he formed a company called Grenada Television Company Limited (the company). He along with then wife, Edlyn Pitt, the parties and their sister Jean Pitt were registered as shareholders of the company. The Government of Grenada was also listed as a shareholder. Indeed, the Government was listed as the largest shareholder.

4 On the 28 ^th May 1974 Joseph Pitt conveyed all of his interest in the property to the company. However, 6 years later in 1980, the People's Revolutionary Government (the PRG) took physical possession of the property. There was no official acquisition process as required by the law and no compensation was ever paid to the company for the acquisition of its sole asset.

5 Joseph Pitt and Edlyn Pitt eventually got divorced. The ancillary relief aspect of the divorce exercise included a property adjustment order dated 7 ^th December 1992. Further to that order and by deed of release dated 7 ^th December 1997 Joseph relinquished his share interest in the company to Edlyn Pitt. The shareholding in the company was thereafter adjusted to reflect the following –

• (1) Edlyn Pitt – 700 shares;

• (2) Brian Pitt, the defendant – 300 shares;

• (3) Jean Pitt – 300 shares;

• (4) Selwyn Pitt – 300 shares;

• (5) Richard Pitt – 300 shares;

• (6) Government of Grenada – 700 shares;

• (7) Glyn Evans – 72 shares.

6 The company was struck off the register of companies (the register) in 1980. The parties and Edlyn Pitt served as directors of the company at the time that it was struck off the register.

7 In 1995 the Government of Grenada relinquished physical possession and control of the property. The exact nature of the Government's relinquishment of the property forms the core of the family dissension. The claimants plead that the property was properly returned to Edlyn Pitt on the company's behalf. Their further complaint is that if Brian Pitt had physical possession of the property when it was handed over in 1995, he held it in trust for the company. Brian Pitt vigorously and vociferously resists his siblings' characterisation of the government's action in 1995. His rejoinder is that the company was struck off the register and could not hold property. He maintains emphatically that the government turned over the property to him. He held and used it as his own exclusively without acknowledging ownership in anyone and without interference. Hence his request for title by adverse possession. It may serve this discourse well to recite the various claims made by both sides in some detail.

Case for Brian Pitt

8 Brian Pitt filed an application on 18 ^th November 2016 in which he sought an order for possessory title to the property. The affidavit attached to that application averred, among other things, that –

• (1) He was in possession of the property for over 12 years;

• (2) There was no other claim affecting the property at the time of making the application;

• (3) There are no other persons claiming the property besides the company;

• (4) He was put in possession of the property on or about 1 ^st June 1995 by a Minister of Government;

• (5) He was given the keys to the property as one of the children of the deceased majority shareholder of the company;

• (6) The company was defunct;

• (7) He has expended his own resources to fix up the property, conducted routine maintenance and major repairs that were necessitated after the building was damaged by hurricane Ivan in 2004;

• (8) He has rented out the property to tenants and collected rents from them without accounting to anyone for the rents;

• (9) Has taken all other major decisions in relation to the property without being required to consult with anyone.

9 The affidavit acknowledges that Joseph Pitt transferred the property to the company in 1974. The affidavit also accepts that the company was struck off the register in 1980. Brian Pitt also pleads that the PRG government took possession of the property, but that the PRG government took the property without formally doing so in accordance with the compulsory acquisition process. Brian Pitt asked the court to find that the company had discontinued possession of the property or was dispossessed of the same by him. As such he is entitled to a declaration of possessory title since he was in exclusive and undisturbed possession for over 12 years.

10 Brian Pitt's application is supported by the evidence of 2 witnesses, McDonald Bullen and John Andy Baptiste, a plumber and tradesman respectively. They both carried out maintenance works at the property at the instance of Brian Pitt. They say in their evidence that since 1995 they have known Brian Pitt to be treating the property as his own; repairing it, maintaining it, renting it out and collecting rents. They are not aware that anyone besides Brian Pitt owns the property.

Case for the claimants

11 After laying out the background regarding the company as stated above, the claimants aver that if Brian Pitt has been in possession of the property from 1995 to 2014 as he asserts or for any period, he did so as the agent of Edlyn Pitt.

12 Alternatively, they insist that if Brian Pitt had possession for the claimed period or at all, he did so in his capacity as a director of the company and as such he held the property on trust for the company. The claimants say that Brian Pitt's fiduciary duties to the company precluded him from setting up a claim for possessory title in respect of the property.

13 The claimants insist that Brian Pitt was well aware that Edlyn Pitt professed ownership of the property from 1995 when it was returned by the Government and maintained her claim to ownership up until her death in 2014. Indeed, they plead, Edlyn Pitt left a will dated 26 ^th June 2008 in which she devised the property to the claimants, Brian Pitt and their sister, Jean Pitt.

14 The claimants urge the court to find –

• (1) Edlyn Pitt was the person put back in possession of the property since 1995;

• (2) Selwyn Pitt has been living at the property since 2007 at the behest of his mother, Edlyn Pitt;

• (3) The property was at some time maintained with moneys raised by all the parties and Jean Pitt further to a consent order whereby family assets, namely a property at Old Fort, St. George, was used to raise funds from Grenada Development Bank and RBTT;

• (4) Brian Pitt had accounted to the executor of the estate, Jean Pitt, for the income and expenses associated with the property;

• (5) As late as December 2016, Brian Pitt acknowledged the claimants' interest in the property;

• (6) The company was restored to the register in February 2017.

Affidavit of Kinna Marrast-Victor

15 The claimants provided evidence from Mrs. Kinna Marrast-Victor, former Government representative to the company. In an affidavit filed on 7 ^th March 2019, Mrs. Victor recounted the history of the property, the company and its interactions with the government as I have recited above. Mrs. Marrast-Victor also stated the following –

• (1) She attended a meeting of the company's shareholders held on 16 ^th April 2018. By the time of the shareholders' meeting, Brian Pitt had already filed the present proceedings for possessory title and his brothers, the claimants had already filed their claim opposing the same;

• (2) The shareholders' meeting elected a new Board of Directors. The meeting also passed a resolution that ratified the proceedings filed by the claimants to oppose Brian Pitt's application for possessory title to the property. The meeting also authorised the claimants to continue the action on behalf of the company;

• (3) Brian Pitt's reliance on a letter dated 20 ^th March 2007 from then Minister of Legal Affairs, Elvin Nimrod is misplaced and it is premised on false information presented by Brian Pitt to Mr. Nimrod. In particular, Brian Pitt's assertion that no title deed existed with respect to the property was false in light of the existence of the deed of transfer dated 28 ^th May 1974 transferring ownership of the property from Joseph Pitt to the company;

• (4) Mr. Nimrod's letter was...