Peter Janvier v Tamika Cole

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Cenac Phulgence J.
• Judgment Date: 16 July 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0624-2
• Year: 2025
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. SLUHCV2019/0330

Between:

Peter Janvier

Claimant

and

Tamika Cole

Defendant

[2025] ECSC J0624-2

Before:

The Hon. Mde. Justice Kimberly Cenac-Phulgence High Court Judge

CLAIM NO. SLUHCV2019/0330

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL)

Appearances:

Mr. Tiris Frederick for the Claimant

Ms. Natalie Da Breo for the Defendant

Cenac Phulgence J.

1 The claimant, Mr. Peter Janvier (“Peter”) filed a claim against the defendant, Ms. Tamika Cole (“Ms. Cole”) seeking the following relief: (a) possession of a parcel of land registered as Block and Parcel Numbers 1046B 346 and 347 (“together referred to as “the Property” or “Parcel 346” and “Parcel 347” as necessary); (b) demolition of the chattel house belonging to Ms. Cole; (c) damages for trespass; (d) costs. In this judgment I will refer to some of the parties and witnesses by their first names simply to avoid any confusion as many of them bear the same last name, Janvier and is not meant as any disrespect to the parties.

The Claim

2 Peter is the owner of the Property which is situate at Trois Piton, Castries, of which he became the proprietor by virtue of an order following a partition dated 28 ^th September 2017. Ms. Cole's late mother, Verne had erected a small chattel house on the Property. Peter's claim is that Verne being deceased, Ms. Cole has now taken possession of the house and the Property by extension without his permission.

3 Peter sent two lawyer's letters demanding that Ms. Cole vacate the Property and demolish the house, but she did not comply. Peter alleges that Ms. Cole still has the house on the Property, visits at odd hours despite living elsewhere, has threatened and insulted him, and has even excavated a large hole on the Property despite knowing it belongs to him solely.

The Defence and Reply

4 Ms. Cole acknowledges that Peter is the registered owner of the Property but disputes his ownership over the specific plot where Verne's house stands. Verne is the daughter of Alexandra Janvier, the legitimate daughter of Frankie also called Frankey and Mary Janvier and sister of Peter. Peter is therefore Ms. Cole's grand uncle. Alexandra is Ms Cole's grandmother.

5 Ms. Cole admits to being in occupation of the land but denies that she is there with the leave or licence of Peter. That land as I understand Ms. Cole in her defence to be saying, comprises the land on which the house sits and the property surrounding the house but does not extend to the entire Property.

6 It is Ms. Cole's pleaded case that sometime in the year 1990, Frankie and Mary Janvier took Verne, their granddaughter and ‘pointed out a plot of land which they gave her as she was pregnant’.

7 In his reply Peter asserts that Alexandra was a party to Claim Number SLUHCV2007/0188 (“the Partition Claim”) and the Court approved the partition of the lands which were the subject matter of that claim and she did not object to the proposed partition nor did she state that her share should be excised where Verne's chattel house was erected. In that partition, which was approved, Alexandra was named as the owner of Lot No. 1 on the proposed partition plan and is the only person from whom Ms. Cole can claim.

8 Peter avers that Ms. Cole is not an heir but a great grand heir of the estate of Frankie and knew or ought to have known of the partition. Peter alleges that at the time of the partition he and Ms. Cole were on good terms and he had always made it clear that he was allowing her to keep the chattel house on the Property. That changed when Ms. Cole opted to be rude and disrespectful to him. He says it had been more than a year since Ms. Cole had left the house which at one time was occupied by Verne.

9 Ms. Cole avers that Verne cleared the plot and indicated her intention to occupy it. According to Ms. Cole, Frankie and Mary Janvier made it clear that their property was family property and their intention was for all of their heirs to have a place to live.

10 Verne married Mr. Allister Cole (“Allister”) and in about 1994, they constructed a concrete foundation on which they placed a wooden house which was their matrimonial home. At the time this house was built, Peter was nowhere around and only came to live on the opposite side of where the house is located in about 2001 and as soon as he came, he had a problem when he discovered that Allister Cole was taking steps to build downstairs the house. At that time, Peter was not the sole proprietor of the Property and only became owner in 2017 when the Land Register was rectified to facilitate registration of the Property in his name.

11 Peter does not deny that Verne was given permission by his father Frankie to erect the chattel house on the Property. He says that it was only after the death of Frankie that Allister tried building a concrete foundation on the land and both he and his mother, Mary Janvier were vehemently opposed to this. Further he says that Alexandra was living with Verne when she got permission to build a chattel house on the Property from Frankie Janvier. Peter in his reply admits that he became the registered proprietor of the Property in 2017, but he says he was in occupation long before that period.

12 Ms. Cole alleges that Peter never objected to the house being on the Property and had agreed that the house remain there and actually surveyed to give ownership to her. She alleges that the survey plan done by Surveyor, Mr. Tennyson Gajadhar actually designated 704.4 square metres as the dimension of the house spot on which the house is located and Peter had no problems with the survey and was willing to give up the portion of land to facilitate Ms. Cole's continued occupation.

13 Peter denies this and says that Alexandra, Ms. Cole's grandmother who was a party to the Partition Claim made no objection to the area allotted to him. Peter in his reply says that Mr. Tennyson Gajadhar, the surveyor who did the partition would have informed both Ms. Cole and Alexandra that as Alexandra had already received her share of the Estate, Ms. Cole would have to give up vacant possession of his Property.

14 Ms. Cole acknowledges that she received the letters from Mr Janvier's lawyers and claims that she did not ignore them but simply found it strange that Peter knowing of the interest which she acquired in the Property by virtue of her mother could simply call upon her to abandon it.

15 Ms. Cole denies that she insults or threatens her granduncle, Peter and alleges that it is he who does this. Ms. Cole denies that there is any hole being dug as alleged by Peter.

16 Peter on the contrary reiterates that on several occasions Ms. Cole has sought to ridicule and embarrass him and has even intimated that she will cause her boys to deal with him.

17 Ms. Cole avers that she is not a trespasser and is lawfully entitled to occupy the Property which was given to Verne who acquired an equitable interest until Peter passes the legal title to her. Peter, Ms. Colle alleges surveyed the Property in order to transfer it to her upon completion of the subdivision which had already been completed. Peter, she says is reneging on his promise.

18 Peter says Ms. Cole continues to trespass on the Property and would dig the downstairs of the house at night and had brought blocks and steel presumably to build the downstairs although she knows that the Property belongs to him.

19 Ms. Cole claims that she has an overriding interest pursuant to section 28 of the Land Registration Act1 (“ LRA”) as she has occupied the house and the land from 1994. Ms. Cole alleges that the overriding interest acquired by her and the beneficial interest acquired by Verne which she inherited by succession were known to Peter which he acquiesced in and condoned by making allowance for it in the Survey Plan and as such this gives rise to an estoppel.

Counterclaim

20 Ms. Cole filed a counterclaim against Peter seeking the following relief: (a) a declaration that the overriding interest which Ms. Cole acquired as a result of her actual occupation of the Property operates to prevent Peter from interfering with her rights; (b) a declaration that Verne has a beneficial interest in the Property acquired and which is held in trust to be transferred by Peter; (c) an order that Peter transfer to Ms. Cole the portion of land measuring 704.4 square metres as shown in the Survey Plan of Mr; Tennyson Gajadhar; (d) an order that the Registrar of Lands rectify the Proprietorship Section of the Land Register to reflect the Proprietorship of Ms. Cole; (e) an injunction prohibiting Peter, his servants or agents from interfering with the right to peaceful enjoyment of the Ms. Cole to the Property.

21 In her counterclaim, Ms. Cole alleges in similar vein to that which is averred in her defence that she is in occupation of a wooden house on a concrete foundation on a parcel of land which is now registered to Peter. She avers that when she commenced living in the house with her mother and father, Verne and Allister, Peter was not the owner of the Property. She repeats the circumstances

of how Verne came to build her house on the Property, a plot of land having been pointed out to her by her grandparents, Frankie and Mary Janvier who were the owners of the Property at the time. Ms. Cole avers that as a result, and though the Property was not transferred to Verne by Deed of Sale an equitable interest was created

Summary of the Parties' cases:

22 In summary, Peter's case is that Ms. Cole occupies the Property and continues to have the chattel house belonging to her mother on the said Property with his permission which he would have given following the partition of the Property. He chose to withdraw that permission due to Ms. Cole's behaviour and asked that Ms. Cole demolish the structure and vacate the property which she has refused to do despite written requests. Ms. Cole continues to occupy the Property and to...