Simeon v Beaubrun
| Jurisdiction | St Lucia |
| Judge | Lewis, J. |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 1956 |
| Neutral Citation | LC 1956 HC 2 |
| Date | 17 January 1956 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Lucia) |
| Docket Number | No. 25 of 1955 |
Windward and Leeward Islands Supreme Court. High Court.
Lewis, J. (Ag.)
No. 25 of 1955
Hon. C.A.M. Compton for plaintiff.
Mr. G.M.A. Mathurin for defendant.
Real property - Landlord and tenant — Tenancy — Terms
Facts: The issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for trees which he planted on the defendant's land. The plaintiff entered into occupation as a tenant on the defendant's land under an oral agreement with the defendant that he should cultivate ground provisions on a shared basis. The plaintiff's tenancy was determined by the defendant by a three month notice to quit.
Held: The plaintiff was entitled to compensation despite the fact that the defendant did not expressly request the planting of the trees. Judgment entered for plaintiff in the sum of $150.00.
In or about the year 1940 the plaintiff entered into occupation as a tenant of the defendant's land at Ravine Poisson, quarter of Castries, under an oral agreement with the defendant that he should cultivate ground provisions on a share basis, the plaintiff receiving two-thirds share and the defendant one-third. The plaintiff continued in occupation until 1st August 1953 when his tenancy was determined by the defendant by a three months notice to quit dated 25th April 1953.
The plaintiff alleges that after he had been in occupation of the land for about one year the defendant asked him to plant coconuts on the land as it was subject to slides—-disastrous having occurred in the district shortly before—and the coconuts would help to hold it together, and that in pursuance of this request he purchased plant: and planted them on the land from time to time. He says that the defendant promised to pay him for the coconut trees if ever he put him off the land. The defendant denies that he told the plaintiff to plant coconuts or that he ever promised to pay him for coconuts planted and states that on the contrary he expressly forbade him to plant coconuts, cocoa, or any other economic trees.
After receiving the notice to quit the plaintiff approached the defendant with a view to obtaining payment for the coconut trees, which he had planted but the defendant refused to pay for them. The plaintiff sought the assistance of the President of the St. Lucia Co-operative Workers Union, the Hon. George Charles, who wrote to the defendant on 7th August, 1953, submitting the plaintiff's complaint and a claim for compensation in respect of the coconuts and the plaintiff's ground provision garden. The defendant in his reply stated that he had never given permission to the plaintiff to plant coconuts on the land and denied liability for their value. Thereupon Charles, whom the plaintiff had authorised to settle the matter on his behalf, interviewed the defendant, who, while still maintaining that he had given no permission to plant coconuts, said that he would send his agent William Edward (Bertie) Cox with Charles “to verify the claim”. Either late in August or early September 1953 the plaintiff, his assessor Busby James, Charles, Cox, and the defendant's new overseer, one John, visited the land and inspected the coconuts. Charles subsequently returned to the defendant, who again repeated that he had never given permission to plant coconuts but offered to pay the plaintiff $48 in settlement of his claim in order to avoid court proceedings. This offer Charles declined on the plaintiff's behalf. The plaintiff later consulted a solicitor but nothing further was done until May 1955 when the present action was filed. This delay in bringing the action has obviously affected the recollection of the witnesses, most of whom were vague as to the actual sequence of events and who all made errors, especially as to time, which cannot be explained on a other basis.
By his declaration the plaintiff claims the sum of £48 11 4 ($230. 72) “the full value of the improvement made by him to the said portion of land” by the planting of 174 coconut trees thereon and £1 13 4 ($8) being his two-thirds share of a provision garden valued at $12.
The first question to be decided is whether the coconut trees were planted at the request of the defendant. It is to be noted that in the complaint which the plaintiff made to the Union, and which is contained in Charles's letter, he does not say that he planted the coconuts “at the request” of the defendant, but “with the permission” of the defendant. There is a distinct difference between request by a proprietor to his tenant to supply and plant economic trees on his land, for which he promises to pay at the expiration of the lease, and a permission given to a tenant who is clearing land and making provision gardens on a share basis to plant economic trees. Nor does the plaintiff in his letter allege promise by the defendant to pay for the coconut trees. The claim, which he makes therein, is rather consistent with the condition of his tenancy. He claims for the coconuts because “I have not gained any benefit from the coconut trees since only three trees have bourne (six) fruit.” I am moreover, impressed by the evidence of the Hon. George Charles as to his interviews with the defendant. He says that the defendant repeatedly made the point that he had given the plaintiff no permission to plant coconuts. At no time does it appear to have been suggested in the course of any of those interviews that the coconuts had been planted at the request of the defendant. All this is inconsistent with the plaintiff's allegation that the coconuts were planted at the request of the defendant.
The plaintiff in his evidence stated that he began to plant coconuts from about one year after he entered into occupation. His oldest coconuts, he claimed were 12 years old in 1953. There was evidence by his own witness, Bushy James, a planter and assessor of long experience, that a coconut tree planted in good soil, would come into bearing in about four years. Busby hesitated to admit that the Ravine Poisson lands were good soil, but he stated that he found only tree bearing, evidently the same tree which George Charles referred to in his evidence as the only bearing tree which he saw on his visit, and which had small coconuts on it. The bearing tree, James said, was about six to eight years old; he also testified to finding two flowering trees, but could give no estimate of their age. Lionel Stephen, the third of the witnesses called by the plaintiff, said that he sold the plaintiff 25 coconut trees in two lots, the first about 10 years ago (i.e. about 1945) and the second about 6 to 7 years ago. Cox, the defendant's agent, who was called by the defendant, and who it was admitted used to visit the land occasionally, said that he first noticed coconut trees on the land in 1946 or 1947. This evidence establishes clearly that the plaintiff first planted coconuts on the land around 1945, and not in 1941 as he alleges. Further, these first trees were planted by a ravine, according to Cox, and not on the hillside to hold up the slipping land as suggested by the plaintiff.
The defendant stated in evidence that the main feature of the agreement was that the plaintiff was not to plant coconuts, cocoa or any economic crops. Not only is it most unlikely that such a stipulation would be the main feature of a lease of land to plant ground provisions on a share basis (the contrary stipulation is more usual), but I have noted that the defendant in his letter dated 20th August 1953 to the St. Lucia Workers Co-operative Union stated:
“He” (plaintiff) “was allowed to plant provision garden on my land on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial