Raymond Jnbaptiste Appellant v Francis Maureen Esther Miller Respondent [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | BYRON, J.A.,C.M. DENNIS BYRON,Justice of Appeal,SIR VINCENT FLOISSAC,Chief Justice,SATROHAN SINGH |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 1996 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1996] ECSC J0129-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia) |
| Docket Number | CIVIL APPEAL NO.6 OF 1993 |
| Date | 29 January 1996 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
The Rt. Hon. Sir Vincent Floissac Chief Justice
The Hon. Mr. C.M. Dennis Byron Justice of Appeal
The Hon. Mr. Satrohan Singh Justice of Appeal
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6 OF 1993
Ms. Fleur Byron-Cox for the Appellant
Mr. Dextor Theodore for the Respondent
On the 29th June 1993 Matthew J., having declared the respondent to be the owner of a parcel of land registered in the Urban Castries Registration Quarter at Block 0848D Parcel 525, and the deed of sale between the appellant and Elizabeth Fulgence in relation to the said parcel null and void, ordered the rectification of the Land Register by cancelling the registration of the said Elizabeth Fulgence as proprietor and substituting the respondent therefor. Elizabeth Fulgence, however, has not joined in this appeal.
The appellant was the adopted son and the late Clarita Miller nee JnBaptiste a natural daughter, of Merope Peart deceased (the testatrix) from whose Estate Parcel 525 was inherited. By an order of the High Court made on the 10th day of December 1955 the respondent became entitled to the succession of Clarita her late mother.
Prior to her death on 20th November 1952 the testatrix made her last will and testament dated 4th July 1939 before A.M. Lewis, Notary Royal. The provision which is relevant to this case is Clause 4 which reads as follows:
"I give devise and bequeath unto my nephews and nieces to wit: …4. Raymond JnBaptiste, ….6. Clarita JnBaptiste….. all the property …which may belong to me or to which I may be entitled at the date of my death I give them the aforesaid property in equal shares, and I stipulate that the share of any of my legatees who shall predecease the said Raymond JnBaptiste shall accrue to the said Raymond JnBaptiste and that on and after his death his share and the share of those dying after him shall accrue to the survivors."
Letters of Administration with the said will dated 4th July 1939 annexed were granted to the appellant pursuant to a consent order made in the Supreme Court of the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands (St.Lucia) on the 21st day of August 1953 in proceedings in which all the legatees under the will including Clarita were parties, upon it being proved that Arthur Green Peart the executor appointed under the said will had previously died on the 4th day of February 1950.
On 12th June 1954 a Deed of Partition was made between the appellant as the personal representative of the said Estate and the Universal legatees including himself and Clarita to put an end to their undivided ownership of the immovable property of the said deceased in accordance with the terms of her will. That Deed contained the following recitals:
"And whereas by a consent order of the said Supreme Court dated 21st August 1953 and registered on 28th August 1953 in Vol. 98 a No. 61097 Letters of Administration with the will annexed were granted to the said Raymond JnBaptiste in respect of the Succession of the said Merope Peart (deceased) and it was further ordered that a partition of the immovable property described in the first schedule hereto be made amongst the parties in a manner to be agreed by them the Administrator being authorised to sell any portion of the said property which cannot conveniently be partitioned or which the parties may agree in writing to sell…."
The appellant distributed the estate in that Deed of Partition, and parcel 525, the subject of this litigation, was therein conveyed to Clarita. He expressly disseized and divested himself of all the rights of property and all other rights which he had to or in or upon the said lot of land in her favour.
Several deeds were tendered in evidence in support of the respondent's pleading that the appellant had sold lots of land included in that Deed of Partition as Administrator and also as a beneficiary, and that other beneficiaries had also sold thereby demonstrating the reliance placed on the validity of the recitals and the conveyance.
On 18th October 1988 the appellant as "Administrator of the estate of Merope Peart deceased" was registered as proprietor of parcel 525 which he, as such Administrator, had previously conveyed to the said Clarita by the Deed of Partition some 34 years earlier in 1954. Then on 14th July 1989 as such Administrator he sold the said land to Elizabeth Fulgence for the sum of $50,000.00. This case was brought to challenge that sale and the registration based on it.
Counsel for the appellant argued two main grounds of appeal which I hope could be fairly described as being:
- That the grant of probate to Arthur Green Peart had the effect of negativing the subsequent grant of administration to the appellant and the consequential deeds and registrations. 2. That as the appellant was registered on the Land Register as Administrator and sold as Administrator his title could not be challenged on proceedings for rectification under the principle in Skelton v Skelton.
The appellant tendered in evidence a grant of probate registered on 6th March 1953 to Arthur Green Peart the sole executor named in the said will. The learned trial Judge dismissed this grant as being a nullity and said:
"It is common knowledge that this probate is a nullity, for Arthur Green Peart died approximately two years before the death of his wife."
In her argument before us the appellant relied on Robinson v Isaacs (1984) 1 A.C. 97 and submitted that it was wrong to categorise the grant to A.G. Peart deceased as a nullity because while it remained as an order it had a deleterious and negativing effect on the subsequent administration in favour of the appellant and the consequential deeds and registrations to which he was a party, in that capacity. This argument was adversely affected by the circumstance that the grant in favour of the appellant was based on an order of the High Court dated 21st August 1953 to which he and Clarita were both parties. The order must be interpreted to have discharged the grant in favour of A.G. Peart deceased, so that it could no longer be regarded as a valid or existing order. Additionally although the learned trial Judge confessed an inability to see the relevance of estoppel to this case, the issue was a live one because the appellant must be affected by the principle of estoppel by record or as it is more commonly described by res judicata. The court order to which the appellant and Clarita were both parties binds them as to its terms and the appellant is thereby precluded from challenging the legality of the grant to himself.
In addition the appellant must be estopped by convention from denying the efficacy of the conveyance to Clarita, and his legal right to convey the same to her. This estoppel is founded on the agreed statement of facts in the recitals of the Deed of Partition (quoted above), the truth of which was assumed, by the convention of the parties, as the basis of the transaction into which they were about to enter. The appellant and the respondent had acted on the assumption that the state of facts set out in the recitals contained in the Deed of Partition was to be accepted between them as true, and each ought to be estopped against the other from questioning the truth of the statement of facts so assumed. It would seem so transparently clear as hardly to require authority that the recital of facts placed by the parties in the very forefront...
To continue reading
Request your trial