St. Ville v Francis or Charles

JurisdictionSt Lucia
JudgeLewis, C.J.,Gordon, J.A.
Judgment Date16 March 1968
Neutral CitationLC 1968 CA 2
Date16 March 1968
CourtCourt of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No. 13 of 1967

West Indies Associated States. (Court of Appeal)

Lewis, C.J., Gordon, J.A.Lewis J.A.

Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1967

St. Ville
and
Francis or Charles
Appearances:

V.A. Cooper for the appellant.

D. McNamara for the respondent.

Real property - Landlord and tenant — Claim by tenant for crops

Facts: This was an appeal against an order of the High Court dismissing the claim by the appellant for $6,307.00 for crops which he alleged he planted during the course of his occupation of lands belonging to the respondent. The court referred to section 372 of the Civil Code which referred to a possessor in bad faith

Held: The crops were planted in bad faith by the appellant at the time he knew he was not the owner of the land and when he knew that the respondent, the owner, was trying to get him out. An order was made that the appellant deliver up the land to the respondent and that the appellant remove the crops he had planted, at his own expense, and without deteriorating the land. The appellant was not entitled to compensation.

Lewis, C.J.
1

This is an appeal against an order of the High Court (Bishop, J.) dated 24 th August 1967 dismissing the claim by the appellant for $6,307 for crops which he alleged he planted during his occupation of certain lands which now belong to the respondent and for an injunction, and ordering him to pay to the respondent the sum of $50.00 in respect; of the respondent's counter-claim for damages for the loss of use of his land during the period of the plaintiff's occupation.

2

Thxe land is question is about one carre in extent, (three and one-fifth acres) which forms part of a parcel of three carres of Delomel Estate in the quarter of Micoud.

3

The appellant is the son of one Eugenie Joseph and the grandson of the original owner of the land, Cherinette Pinel. As a boy, he lived on the land, and as a young man, he planted, a few economic crops –coconuts, cocoa trees, and so on. His mother at that time was in possession of the land, and he seems to have done this with her permission. Then he went away to Cuba, and he was absent from St. Lucia for many years until his return in 1951. He returned to the land, his mother was still on three carres, and there were ether members of the family also living there, and he, apparently with her permission, cultivated crops and grew some vegetable gardens. Then, in March 1959 his mother sold the land to the respondent, and in April 1959 the respondent gave him notice to deliver the land to him on the first of August 1960, to remove all his existing cultivation, and forbade him to plant any further gardens as no time beyond the first of August 1960 would be given for the removal of such gardens. He was also requested by this notice not to interfere with any permanent crops and to confine his dealings to his existing gardens. At that time the existing gardens were merely vegetable garden, such as yams.

4

According to the appellant's own evidence, he did not accept this notice as being valid. He thought that his mother owned the land in community with his deceased father, and that he had an interest in it as one of his father's heirs. He went to a solicitor who, no doubt from what he recounted to him, advise him that he had a claim to the land. Thereupon he uprooted the vegetable gardens and put in bananas.

5

On 29 th July 1960, he filed a suit against his mother and the respondent in the former Supreme Court-No. 70/1960. The Defence to that Suit was not filed until 17 th November 1961, and in that Defence it was pleaded that Cherinette Pinel the grandmother, had purchased the Delomel Estate under a deed of sale and during her lifetime had informally divided the estate amongst her seven illegitimate children; that this was done before the marriage of the appellant's mother, and her share, which was three carres, was therefore her separate property. It was these three carres, she sold to the respondent. After this Defence was filed intimating to the appellant the respondent's title to the land, that suit was discontinued.

6

However, the appellant remained on the land, and continued to plant, and there was a continuous dispute between the parties resulting in suits between them in the Magistrate's Court which the magistrate declined to adjudicate upon no doubt because he had no power to determine the title. Then in 1966, according to the appellant, he took up all the bananas that he planted on this land replanted the land in bananas – some 6,000 plants – extending the area of cultivation. Early in January 1967 he filed the present suit.

7

The respondent in his Defence pleaded title and said that he had been attempting to gain possession of the land, but...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT