Charles v Phillip et Al

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Berridge, J.A.,Peterkin, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 10 November 1980
• Neutral Citation: LC 1980 CA 2
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 10 November 1980
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1980

Court of Appeal

Peterkin, C.J.

Berridge, J. A.

Robotham, J. A.(Ag.)

Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1980

Charles

and

Phillip et al

Appearances:

H. Deterville for appellant

K. Monplaisir for first-named respondent

A. McNamara for second-named respondent

Tort - Damages — Unlawful sale of land

Real property - Ownership

Facts: This was an appeal from a decision of the trial judge in which he ordered that judgment be entered for the plaintiff/appellant and in which he granted a declaration that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the house in dispute and general damages in the sum of $2,200.00 being the purchase price of the house which had been sold by the first defendant to the second defendant and general damages in the sum of $960.00 for loss of use.

This was an appeal from a decision of the trial judge in which he ordered that judgment be entered for the plaintiff/appellant and in which he granted a declaration that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the house in dispute. The appellant claimed that she had left the respondent in charge of renting the house and that he sold it to the second respondent - The respondent claimed the entire premises as his, stating that he had bought and repaired them with his money.

Held: There was no reason to upset the trial judge's findings that the plaintiff/appellant was the owner of the house and that the first respondent was not legally entitled to sell the house to the second respondent. The trial judge ought to have set aside the sale and granted to the plaintiff/appellant an order for possession against the second defendant and ought to have awarded her damages for loss of use calculated on the basis of rental of $80.00 per month from the date of sale up to the delivery of possession. Appeal allowed. Order in above terms made.

There was no reason to upset the trial judge's findings on the issue of ownership. That the first respondent was not legally entitled to sell the house to the second respondent.

Berridge, J.A.

1 This is an appeal from the decision of Renwick J in which he ordered that judgment be entered for the plaintiff/appellant as follows:

• (1) A declaration that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the house situate at 67 George Charles Boulevard;

• (2) Special damages to the plaintiff in the sum of $640.00 being rent as per her claim;

• (3) General damages in the sum of $2,200.00 being the purchase price of the house sold by the 1st named defendant to the 2nd named defendant;

• (4) General damages in the sum of $960.00 for loss of use;

• (5) Plaintiff entitled to her costs to be taxed;

• (6) 2nd named defendant dismissed from the suit.

2 The first respondent has by notice challenged the findings of the trial judge and the order made. The second respondent has filed no notice but counsel was heard on his behalf at the hearing of this appeal.

3 It is common ground that the appellant and the first respondent were for a period of approximately ten years on friendly terms but did not occupy the same house.

4 The plaintiff/appellant's evidence is that she bought the house, the subject matter in dispute, from Alice Cadette for the sum of $750.00, $600.00 of which she withdrew from her bank account and the balance she paid from cash in hand. She later carried out repairs and additions to the house and paid for these improvements, the materials having been purchased from her employer, J. Q. Charles & Co. Ltd.

5 She moved into the...