Warner v Nicklette

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Manning, J.
• Judgment Date: 12 May 1959
• Neutral Citation: LC 1959 HC 3
• Date: 12 May 1959
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: No. 1 of 1959

Supreme Court of the Windward and Leeward Islands. (Civil Jurisdiction)

Manning, J.

No. 1 of 1959

Warner

and

Nicklette

Appearances:

H. J. François for plaintiff

D. A. McNamara for defendant.

Real property - Landlord and tenant — Eviction

Facts: The appellant was a tenant of the respondent. The appellant alleged that the respondent agreed to rent lodgings after repairs to the lodgings were effected. The issue was whether the situation amounted to ejection.

Held: The situation amounted to an eviction since the appellant was given no notice. The appellant was entitled to a month's notice. Appellant awarded damages in the sum of $9.60.

Manning, J.

1 At the end of February 1958, one Marie Paul, who lived in French Guiana, was the owner of a house, number 43 in Grass Street, Castries. Her attorney in Castries was one Louis Nicklette, the defendant in this action. The house was rented to one Arthur Warner, the plaintiff in this action.

2 At the end of February or beginning of March 1958, the plaintiff vacated the house. The main issue is what were the circumstances which led him to vacate. He says, and he is corroborated by his wife, that the house was in urgent need of repairs; that in November 1957, he had complained to the defendant; that the defendant inspected the premises, and reached the conclusion that the repairs needed were so extensive that the house would be uninhabitable while they were being effected. Article 1538 of the Civil Code provides for such a contingency; but in this case the plaintiff was willing to undergo the inconvenience of vacating the entire premises temporarily and seeking accommodation elsewhere. He accordingly waited until such accommodation was available and vacated the premises at the time stated above. The defendant agreed to reinstate him as tenant as soon as the repairs had been completed. At the end of a June the defendant informed him that he would not renew the tenancy.

3 The defendant's version of the affair differs from this. He stated that in 1957 he called on the plaintiff in his office and told him that he had a power of attorney to repair and sell the house; that the plaintiff should vacate “when he feels to get a reasonable place to live”. The plaintiff accordingly vacated at the end of February 1958; the repairs were carried out and completed in July 1958; and a fresh tenant was installed. The defendant denies that there was ever any agreement to re-instate the plaintiff when the...