Fontenelle v Louis

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Lewis, J.
• Judgment Date: 17 January 1956
• Neutral Citation: LC 1956 HC 1
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: No. 8 of 1955
• Date: 17 January 1956

Windward and Leeward Islands Supreme Court. High Court. (Appellate Jurisdiction)

Lewis, J. (Ag.)

No. 8 of 1955

Fontenelle

and

Louis

Appearances:

Hon. C.A.M. Compton for appellant.

Hon. John Compton for respondent.

Practice and procedure - Contempt of court

Facts: This was an appeal against an order of the magistrate dismissing a complaint brought by the appellant seeking to have the respondent punished for contempt of court for wilful failure to obey an order. The respondent had refused to give up possession of the land in question in accordance with the court's order. The purchasers of the land in question brought an action of contempt against the respondent. The issues were whether the appellant purchaser was competent to bring the complaint of contempt of court, whether the complaint was out of the time and whether the order made by the magistrate was defective.

Held: The appellant was competent to bring the complaint but his proper remedy was by way of civil proceedings. The complaint was out of time. Under section 1046 of the Criminal Code a complaint for a summary offence must be brought within 6 months of its commission except in the case of a continuous offence. This complaint was not a continuous one and was therefore statute barred. The magistrate's order was not clear. The order was vague and indefinite and ineffective so that no committal order or punishment for contempt of court could be founded upon it. Appeal dismissed.

Lewis, J.

1 I intimated at the conclusion of the hearing that this appeal would be dismissed and that I would state my reasons in writing.

2 This is an appeal against an order of the magistrate of the Third District Court dismissing a complaint brought by the appellant seeking to have the respondent punished for contempt of court, for wilful failure to obey an order of the Third District Court dated 11th December 1952.

3 The facts were that the respondent has for some years been in computation of three carr's of the Angier lands situate in the quarter of Vieux-Fort which he claims to have purchase from one Ismalie's St. Pierre but for which he had no Deed of Sale. Upon Ismalie's death in 1947, and in pursuance of an Order of the Supreme Court dated 31st May 1948 the Crown entered into possession of her succession, including this portion of land, as a vacant succession. In 1951 the Government of St. Lucia sold the land to Merope William and Elmina Sexius (nee William), illegitimate sisters of Ismalie St. Pierre. The respondent, however, apparently claiming that the land did not form part of Ismalie. St. Pierre's succession, refused to give up possession, whereupon Merope William filed a complaint against him under section 434 of the Criminal Code. This section authorises a magistrate, where it is proved to his satisfaction, on the hearing of a complaint made by a proprietor or occupier of land, that the defendant has entered upon and used or occupied such land without leave or lawful authority for so doing, to make an order for the, removal, by force if necessary, of such defendant from the said land, and also for the removal of any erection, animal or thing whatsoever which he may have placed or have thereon. The learned magistrate, purporting to act under this section, made the following Order against the defendant:

“Ordered to deliver possession to complainant by 18th December, 1952.”

4 The respondent did not leave the land. Merope William brought another complaint against him, which was discontinued, and in 1954, having failed to obtain possession, sold the land to the appellant. The appellant also tried unsuccessfully to put the respondent off the land, and in June 1955 brought the complaint out of which this appeal has arisen.

5 The learned magistrate dismissed the complaint on the grounds (1) that the complainant was not competent to bring the complaint as be was not a party to the Order of 11th December,...