Mary President Plaintiff/Appellant v Louisa Lewis Defendant/Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: LEWIS, C.J. (Ag.),ST. BERNARD, J.A.,BISHOP, J.A. (Ag.)
• Judgment Date: 03 September 1972
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1972] ECSC J0903-1
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 03 September 1972
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1972

[1972] ECSC J0903-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable the Acting Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

The Honourable Mr. Justice Bishop (Ag.)

Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1972

Between:

Mary President

Plaintiff/Appellant

and

Louisa Lewis

Defendant/Respondent

J. Raynold for Appellant

Primrose A. Belman for Respondent

LEWIS, C.J. (Ag.)

1 This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Peterkin dated May 31, 1972 in which he made an order dismissing the plaintiff/appellant's claim for possession of certain premises situate at Anse-La-Raye.

2 The plaintiff/appellant in her declaration averred that she was the owner of a lot of land with a dwelling house thereon situate at Mole Street in the village of Anse-La-Raye and that she obtained this property from one Francillia Francis on August 12, 1968, by a deed of sale which is registered in Vol. 108, No. 88649.

3 The other material allegation in the declaration is that the defendant/respondent is in wrongful possession of the said lot of land not withstanding that a notice to quit was served on her to give up possession of the said land not later than May 1, 1970. The defence admitted that the plaintiff/appellant was the holder of a deed of sale for the said land, but denied that it conferred any title to the land on the plaintiff/appellant for the following reasons: (a) "The defendant/respondent acquired the land by prescriptive title having been in uninterrupted peaceable, public and unequivocal possession of the same as proprietor for over 30 years, and (b) the plaintiff's vendor, Francillia Francis falsely declared in the document by which the said vendor claimed to derive title that she the vendor was solely entitled to the said property."

4 It is admitted that the plaintiff/appellant purchased the property in question from one Francillia Francis who claimed it through her brother Herrance Francis. He had purchased it in the year 1924 from Gabriel Michel Staney. Two days before the sale to the plaintiff/appellant, Francillia Francis made a declaration of the immoveable property passing on the death of her brother Herrance Francis that he had died intestate on or about the 15th June, 1951 leaving her as his heir-at-law and that his succession devolved upon her. After the appellant had purchased the property she informed the respondent of the fact that she was the purchaser, and gave her notice to quit.

5 The appellant's vendor Francillia Francis is now dead so her evidence is not available. The appellant in her evidence stated that she had never seen Francillia Francis living on the property but had met the respondent living there when she purchased it. She said also, that she did not know that the respondent was claiming the land as her own, or that anyone was in occupation of the property when she purchased it from Francillia Francis. In relation to Francillia Francis the evidence of the appellant is as follows:—

"The person I bought from is dead. She was not living on the land when I bought. She had left there already. I have never seen her living there. When I bought I met the defendant living there."

6 So quite obviously the appellant cannot say that Francillia had already left the land because she had never seen her living there, and she does not know whether she ever lived on the land. The appellant also stated in her evidence.

"The defendant said that they had given her the thing herself. Francillia's brother had bought the property. He is Herrance Francis. I bought from Francillia. She can claim it. She could not get defendant off the land because she never attempted. After I bought I went to Court with them.

I did not know that they were claiming the land as their own. When I bought I did not know that there was anyone in occupation."

7 That is all the evidence which the appellant adduced and the judge, in my opinion rightly described her case as being starved of evidence. On the other hand Louisa Lewis said that Herrance her brother went away from St. Lucia some 42 years ago, and that she was in occupation of the house and land since his death. In cross-examination she said:

"He gave me this property 42 years ago. I pay the house tax on his name. I am ignorant and don't...