Preltop Bain Appellant v Alma St. Louis Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: PETERKIN, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 21 January 1979
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1979] ECSC J0121-1
• Docket Number: MAGISTERIAL: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 1978
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 21 January 1979

[1979] ECSC J0121-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Hon. Sir Maurice Davis, Q.C.—chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Peterkin

The Honourable Mr. Justice Berridge (Acting)

MAGISTERIAL: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 1978

Between:

Preltop Bain

Appellant

and

Alma St. Louis

Respondent

Appearances:

H.R. Scipio for Appellant

K. Radix for Respondent

PETERKIN, J.A.

1 This is an appeal against the decision of the Magistrate for the Southern District in which he awarded to the Plaintiff/Respondent the sum of $250 as damages, and $81.00 costs. The facts may be stated in short compass. The Respondent was the tenant of the Appellant in respect of a small shop at Morne Jaloux at an agreed monthly rental of 20.00. The rent included electrical current for use in the shop where the meter was located. The Appellant's house was about 20 feet from the shop and was also supplied with electrical current from the same meter. The Appellant also lent to the Respondent a scale whichhe had in the shop and some confectionery bottles for use in the shop. This was in the year 1974. In 1976 the Respondent fell into arrears with her rent, and on 23rd July, 1976, the Appellant served her with a notice to quit. The Respondent continued in occupation of the premises, and on 5th October, 1976, the Appellant wrote to her informing her that he proposed to have a separate meter affixed to the shop for her personal use. Nothing came of this, however, and she concedes that she had never paid anything for electricity as she had never received any bills. Then the Respondent was three months in arrears (August, September and October, 1976), the Appellant caused a letter to be written to her by his solicitor. It was dated 16th November, 1976, and read in part,

"In the event of year giving up the premises by the 30th instant, my client will not press for the rental now due, but should you refuse to do so then my client will be forced to take action accordingly."

2 From this point onwards there is a collision of evidence. The Appellant's case is that the Respondent had ceased to occupy the premises. That she had removed from the premises sometime in December not only her own refrigerator, bat also the scale and the confectionery bottles which he had lent to her. His case in short is that she had not only ceased to trade, but had removed everything of value from the premises leaving only a defective lock on the door. He claims that when the Respondent went to the premises on the 24th and 25th December that she had done so in pique and for the sole purpose of depriving him of electrical current by removing the fuse from the meter which also controlled his premises. These are the reasons which he gave for nailing up the doer of the premises on the night of 25th December.

3 The Respondent on the other hand denies...