Gaston v Peter

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Manning, J.
• Judgment Date: 31 August 1959
• Neutral Citation: LC 1959 HC 12
• Docket Number: Appeal No. 7 of 1959
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 31 August 1959

Supreme Court of the Windward and Leeward Islands. (Appellate Jurisdiction).

Manning, J.

Appeal No. 7 of 1959

Gaston

and

Peter

Appearances:

M. Mason for appellant

Hunter J. FranÇois for respondent.

Real property - Title

Facts: Appellant was convicted by a Magistrate's court of an offence under section 434 of the Criminal Code in that he entered upon and occupied the land of the party in question without leave of that person. The question of title was raised. The issue was whether the defendant had to make out a prima facie claim of title to an interest in the land such as would prove a good defence to a civil action.

Held: The magistrate had no jurisdiction to investigate the strength of the defendant's claim. Once it was clear that the defendant's claim was neither absurd nor impossible in law it was not permissible to come to any conclusion as to the apparent weakness of the defendant's case on such evidence as has been led. There was no evidence that the question was not raised bona fide.

Manning, J.

1 On the 7 ^th July 1959, the appellant was convicted by the magistrate's court of the Third District of an offence under s. 434 of the Criminal Code in that he entered upon and occupied a portion of land in the possession of one Phillip Peter without leave of the said Phillip Peter and without lawful authority.

2 There was evidence before the learned magistrate that the respondent Peter was in possession of a defined portion of land, that the appellant had entered upon it without his leave, and that this was the first year that the appellant had entered the land in order to cultivate part of it. The defence of the appellant was that the land belonged to his sister and that his sister had placed him on it 18 years ago. He did not call his sister as a witness or any other person to corroborate his evidence.

3 The question of title was therefore raised and the learned Magistrate had to consider the terms of s. 1031 of the Criminal Code. The section is as follows: “If, upon the hearing of any complaint under this Book, the magistrate is of opinion that a bona fide question of title to land, or to any interest therein or accusing therefrom, is raised between the parties, he shall dismiss such complaint…”

4 The learned Magistrate held that the question of title raised between the parties was not raised bona fide and convicted him.

5 The appellant has appealed and his only ground of appeal is “That the learned Magistrate erred in law as on the hearing of this complaint a bona fide question of interest in land was raised between the parties and the learned Magistrate should have dismissed the complaint”.

6 Before arguing the appeal, Mr. Mason, for the appellant, applied that an affidavit by the appellant should be considered. He said that certain statements made by the appellant in the Court below had not been recorded in the notes of the learned Magistrate, and that the affidavit now proposed to be introduced set out these statements and rectified the omissions made by the lea Magistrate. I decided not to allow the affidavit to be introduced as part of the record, as I considered that the facts stated should he supported by better evidence than that of the appellant alone.

7 Mr. Mason, in arguing the appeal, cited three cases decided by this Court. The first was Biennome v Helix, decided on January 14 ^th 1952. In that case, Date, J., reviewed previous decisions of Courts in England on the question of “ bona fides”, and said that the real question was whether “the defendant made out a prima facie claim of title to an interest in land — a claim of such a kind that it would, if proved, afford him a good defence to a civil action in the appropriate Court”. Citing Cornwall v Sanders, 1862, L.J. M.C. 6, he said: “There must be a show of reason in the claim, and the defendant must satisfy the Magistrate that there is reasonable ground for his assertion of title”, and he added “The question of the honest belief of the defendant may be very relevant in considering the merits of a case”. The same learned judge, in another case decided the same day, Monrose v Flavius, quoted at length from Appendix 2 of Russell on Crime, 10 ^th Ed., Vol. 2, No. 1899 et seq. The main principles laid down in this Appendix were that as long as there is a “ prima facie” claim of title, the Magistrate must dismiss the complaint; that “ bona fide claim of title” is an unfortunate expression, “for it has often given rise to the erroneous view that if the defendant has an honest belief that he had a legal right to do the act complained of, then that will be enough to oust the jurisdiction; and that which alone ousts the...