the republic of trinidad and tobago in the...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1 of 42
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CLAIM NO. CV 2009 - 02474
Between
KATHLEEN BAPTISTE
JASON BAPTISTE
Claimants
And
GERALDINE HYPOLITE
Defendant
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. DES VIGNES
Appearances:
Mr. Gerard Raphael for the Claimants
Mr. Keston Mc Quilkin and Ms. Theresa Hadad instructed by Ms. Nalini Jagnarine for the
Defendant
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. This matter involves a dispute as to ownership of a concrete dwelling house erected on a parcel
of land situate at Light Pole 53, Pundit Street, El Socorro, San Juan which is bounded on the
North by Pundit Street on the East, West and South by lands of heirs of Chanka Maharaj
(hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”). The freehold interest in the subject land was
Page 2 of 42
initially owned by Chandrahanse Maharaj and Narendra Maharaj (hereinafter referred to as
“the lessors”) who leased it to Virdy King, the father of the First Claimant and the Defendant
(hereinafter referred to as “Virdy”). On 27th March, 2001, the Defendant purchased the
interests of both Virdy and the lessors, thereby becoming the owner in fee simple of the subject
land.
2. The Claimants allege that they are the owners of a concrete dwelling house located to the back
of the subject land (hereinafter referred to as “the disputed house”) as well as the land on which
the disputed house stands (hereinafter referred to as “the disputed land”) by virtue of
purchasing same from Aldwyn King, the brother of the First Claimant and Defendant
(hereinafter referred to as “Aldwyn”). As a consequence, the Claimants seek declaratory relief
to have the disputed house and the disputed land vested in them in fee simple in equity as well
as injunctive relief to prevent the Defendant from evicting or attempting to evict them. The
Claimants also seek an Order that the Defendant convey the disputed house and the disputed
land to them.
3. The Defendant contends that the Claimants do not have any interest in the disputed house and
the disputed land and avers that the disputed house was owned by Virdy and by virtue of her
purchase of Virdy’s leasehold interest and the lessors’ freehold interest in the subject land, she
became the owner thereof. The Defendant further contends that the Claimants obtained a mere
licence to occupy the disputed house from Virdy which said licence was continued by the
Defendant upon acquisition of Virdy’s interest in the subject land, until it was revoked in 2008.
As a consequence, the Defendant has counterclaimed against the Claimants for possession of
the disputed house and the disputed land as well as the repayment of outstanding utility rates,
interest and costs.
THE CLAIM
4. By Claim Form and Statement of Case filed on 9th July, 2009 the Claimants alleged as follows:
a. At all material times, Virdy was the tenant of the lessors in respect of the subject land
and constructed a tapia house to the front of the subject land where he resided with his
wife, Sheryl King and his children, Glen King, Ian King and Aldwyn King as well as
the First Claimant and the Defendant;
Page 3 of 42
b. In or around 1979, Aldwyn, with the permission and active encouragement of Virdy,
constructed the disputed house for himself and his family to reside, at a cost of
approximately $30,000.00;
c. In or around 1982, Virdy demolished the tapia house and in or about 1984 he erected a
concrete house in its place. During the construction phase, Virdy and the entire family
resided in the disputed house;
d. In or about 1996, Aldwyn decided to migrate with his family to the United States of
America and, with the oral consent of Virdy, he sold the disputed house to the
Claimants at the cost of $43,000.00. Thereafter, in or around 1997, the Claimants
moved into the disputed house with their family and during the period 2000 to 2008
they effected reconstruction and repair works which included, tiling, plumbing,
electrical works and changes to the roof, windows and inner walls at the cost of
approximately $50,000.00;
e. By Deed dated 27th March, 2001 and registered as No.DE200101367464 on 26th June,
2001, Virdy, with the consent of the lessors, assigned and conveyed his share and
interest in the dwelling house to the front and the subject land to the Defendant for the
sum of $30,000.00;
f. By Deed dated 27th March, 2001, and registered as No.DE200101367585 on the 26th
June, 2001, the Defendant purchased the freehold interest in the subject land from the
lessors for the sum of $50,000.00. Further, by Deed dated 26th April, 2001 and
registered as No. DE200101396032 on the 28th June, 2001, the Defendant mortgaged
the subject land together with both dwelling houses thereon to Scotiabank, without the
knowledge and/or consent of the Claimants;
g. The Defendant has requested that they vacate the disputed house and has since
instituted ejectment proceedings against the First Claimant; and
h. By Deed registered as No. BS200900463973, Aldwyn assigned his interest in the
disputed house and the disputed land to the Claimants.
5. By reason of the matters aforesaid, the Claimants claim the following relief against the
Defendant:
Page 4 of 42
a. A declaration that the disputed house and the disputed land are vested in fee simple in
equity in the Claimants;
b. An order that the Defendant convey the disputed house and disputed land to the
Claimants;
c. An injunction restraining the Defendant from evicting or attempting to evict the
Claimants; and
d. Costs.
THE DEFENCE
6. By Defence and Counterclaim filed on 23rd October, 2009, the Defendant alleged as follows:
a. Although Virdy was the tenant of the subject land, the tapia house existed prior to
Virdy’s tenancy and Kelvin King, another child of Virdy, resided therein;
b. In or around 1975, Virdy built a one room wooden structure and gave permission to
Aldwyn, Glen King and two cousins to reside therein. In 1978, Virdy built the disputed
house as temporary accommodation for his family while a proposed 2-storey concrete
structure was being constructed;
c. Aldwyn did not erect the disputed house to accommodate himself and his family nor
did he ever own it as, when it was built, Aldwyn was 18 years old, unmarried and he
had no children or a permanent job;
d. On 7th April, 1982, the Town and Country Planning Division (TCPD) granted the
relevant approvals to Virdy for the construction of the 2-storey concrete dwelling
house, subject to the condition that the disputed house be demolished upon completion
of the approved structure;
e. Virdy did demolish the tapia house in or about 1982 and erected a concrete dwelling
house in its place in or about 1984. The second story of the concrete dwelling house
was not completed due to a lack of funds;
f. When Virdy and his family moved into the concrete dwelling house to the front, he
granted a licence to Aldwyn to reside in the disputed house with his family and in 1994,
Page 5 of 42
Aldwyn migrated to the United States of America and returned briefly in 1995 and
1997 for his wife and children respectively;
g. Virdy never gave Aldwyn permission to sell the disputed house to the Claimants and,
upon his migration, Virdy gave the First Claimant permission to reside in the disputed
house, rent free with her family. The Claimants have resided there since 1997 to date;
h. Upon the Defendant’s acquisition of Virdy’s interest in the subject land, the Claimants
were given a licence to continue to reside in the disputed house rent free but with the
undertaking to pay the electricity and water rates;
i. The Claimants should not be compensated for the reconstruction and repair works done
on the disputed house as this was initially undertaken without the Defendant’s
permission and subsequently continued, despite the Defendant’s warning to desist;
j. The following correspondence were exchanged between the Claimants and the
Defendant via their respective Attorneys-at-Law:
i. Letter dated 15th January, 2004 - The Defendant’s Attorney-at-law wrote to the
Claimants requesting that they desist from continuing reconstruction and repair
works on the disputed house without the Defendant’s permission;
ii. Letter dated 20th June, 2008 - The Claimants’ Attorney-at-law wrote to the
Defendant indicating that they owned the disputed house;
iii. Letter dated 13th August, 2008 – The Defendant’s Attorney-at-law wrote to the
Claimants indicating that the Defendant was the owner of the subject land as
well as the disputed house and annexed Deeds as proof thereof. The licence
granted to the Claimants to occupy the disputed house was also revoked therein;
iv. Letter dated 26th August, 2008 – The Claimants Attorney-at-law forwarded a
purported declaration by the Second Claimant and signed by Aldwyn indicating
that the Second Claimant had entered into an agreement for the purchase of the
disputed house and disputed land on the immediate payment of $7,000.00 and
monthly payments of $100.00;
v. Letter dated 2nd October, 2008 - The Defendant’s Attorney-at-law wrote to the
Claimants indicating that the purported declaration neither evidenced Aldwyn’s
Page 6 of 42
ownership or construction of the disputed house nor their purchase of same.
Additionally, the Claimants were given until 30th September, 2008 to vacate the
disputed house; and
vi. Undated Letter - The Claimants Attorney-at-law forwarded an undated letter to
the Defendant contending that Aldwyn owned the disputed house and was given
the disputed land by Virdy to construct same.
k. Virdy assigned all his interest in the whole of the subject land to the Defendant as
evidenced by Deed No.DE200101367464 and this was done with the knowledge and/or
consent of the Claimants as, in or around March 2000, Virdy held a meeting with all
persons who resided on the subject land, including the Claimants and advised them of
same. The Claimants did not raise any objection to this assignment;
l. The lessors sold the freehold interest in the subject land to the Defendant as evidenced
by Deed No.DE200101367585 and the subject land and the buildings thereon have
been mortgaged to Scotiabank as evidenced by Deed No. DE200101396032; and
m. The Defendant denies any knowledge of the purported assignment of interest in the
disputed house and disputed land by Aldwyn to the Claimants and further contends that
there are discrepancies between the signatures of Aldwyn on the purported declaration
and the Deed respectively.
7. By reason of the matters aforesaid, the Defendant counterclaims against the Claimants for:
a. Possession of the subject land;
b. Payment of arrears in the sum of $1,725.00 for outstanding electricity bills for the
period spanning September 2008 to January 2009 ($1,405.00) and water rates for the
period spanning May 2008 to May 2009 ($320.00) which the Claimants failed to pay
while in occupation of the disputed house and disputed land pursuant to the licence
granted by the Defendant;
c. Interest; and
d. Costs.
Page 7 of 42
REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM
8. By Reply and Defence to the Counterclaim filed on 19th January, 2010, the Claimants allege
as follows:
a. Aldwyn built the disputed house and not Virdy;
b. Aldwyn began working at the age of fourteen (14) as a labourer with the Ministry of
Works and Transport and although he was classified as a casual worker, he was
regularly employed;
c. Virdy did not grant a licence to Aldwyn to reside in the disputed house with his family
neither did he grant the First Claimant a licence to reside in the disputed house rent
free. In addition, the Defendant did not grant the Claimants a licence to continue to
reside in the disputed house;
d. It is not admitted that Aldwyn was not given permission by Virdy to sell the disputed
house or that Aldwyn never owned same;
e. Virdy did not assign all his interest in the whole of the subject land to the Defendant
and the assigned interest was subject to the interest of the Claimants in the disputed
house. Further, there was no meeting where Virdy indicated his intention to transfer
his interest to the Defendant without the objection of the Claimants;
f. As the owners of the disputed house, the Claimants were entitled to effect repairs to
same; and
g. The Claimants agreed to pay half of the electricity and water rates and have done so to
date. Therefore, the Claimants deny that the Defendant has suffered any loss and
damage as claimed. Further, in or around September 2008, the Claimants’ electricity
supply was disrupted by the Defendant.
EVIDENCE
9. In support of their case, the Claimants relied on the Witness Statements of:
a. Kathleen Baptiste;
b. Aldwyn King; and
c. Kathleen Holder.
Page 8 of 42
10. In support of her case, the Defendant relied on the Witness Statements of:
a. Geraldine Hypolite;
b. Virdy King;
c. Kelvin King; and
d. Sheryl King.
ISSUES
11. The following issues arise for determination in this matter:
i. Did Aldwyn, with the permission and active encouragement of his father, Virdy King,
erect the disputed house in or around 1979 for himself and his family at a cost of
approximately $30,000 or did Virdy King erect the disputed house as temporary
accommodation for his family?
ii. Did the Claimants purchase the disputed house from Aldwyn for $43,000 in or around
1997, with the permission of Virdy?
iii. Did the Defendant grant the Claimants a licence to continue to reside in the disputed
house rent free after she acquired Virdy’s leasehold interest and the freehold interest of
the lessors in the subject land? If so, was this licence revoked by the Defendant?
iv. Did the Claimants effect reconstruction and repairs to the disputed house between 2000
and 2008 at a cost of $50,000? If so, were these works done without the permission of
the Defendant and despite protests by her?
v. Did the Claimants give an undertaking to the Defendant to pay the electricity bills and
water rates in respect of the disputed house and are they liable to the Defendant in the
amounts of $1,725.00?
vi. Are the Claimants entitled to the reliefs sought against the Defendant?
vii. Is the Defendant entitled to the reliefs sought against the Claimants?
ISSUE I: DID ALDWYN, WITH THE PERMISSION AND ACTIVE ENCOURAGEMENT
OF HIS FATHER, VIRDY KING, ERECT THE DISPUTED HOUSE IN OR AROUND
1979 FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY AT A COST OF APPROXIMATELY $30,000 OR
Page 9 of 42
DID VIRDY KING ERECT THE DISPUTED HOUSE AS TEMPORARY
ACCOMMODATION FOR HIS FAMILY?
12. The following facts are not in dispute between the parties:
a. Virdy was a statutory lessee of the lessors of the subject land under and by virtue of the
Land Tenants (Security of Tenure) Act 1981;
b. In 1982, Virdy sought and obtained permission from the TCPD to develop the subject
land by erecting a 2-storey concrete dwelling house. This permission expressly
imposed as a condition that the existing building be demolished upon completion of
the proposed new building;
c. By Deed registered as No. DE200101367464, Virdy, with the consent of the lessors,
assigned and conveyed to the Defendant all his right share and interest in the leasehold
premises and the dwelling house standing thereon to the Defendant for the sum of
$30,000.00;
d. By Deed of Conveyance registered as No. DE200101357585D000, the Defendant
purchased the freehold interest in the subject land from the lessors for $50,000.00; and
e. By Deed of Mortgage registered as No. DE200101396032D000, the Defendant
mortgaged the subject land together with the buildings thereon and the appurtenances
thereto belonging to Scotiabank to secure repayment of moneys owing on banking
facilities granted by Scotiabank to the Defendant.
The Evidence
The Claimants’ Evidence
Kathleen Baptiste – First Claimant
13. In her Witness Statement, the First Claimant stated that her father, Virdy, constructed and
owned a two bedroom tapia house which occupied the front of the subject land. This tapia
house was occupied by Virdy and his family including the Defendant and herself.
14. In or around 1979, Virdy gave permission to Aldwyn to erect a concrete house at the back of
the subject land. At that time, Aldwyn was employed as a Labourer in the Ministry of Works
and Transport. With the encouragement and permission of Virdy, Aldwyn erected a three
Page 10 of 42
bedroom concrete dwelling house on the back portion of the subject land at a cost of
approximately $30,000.
15. In or around 1982, Virdy wanted to erect a concrete upstairs house on the front portion of the
subject land and so he demolished the tapia house and moved his family to the back house
which had been built by Aldwyn until the completion of the dwelling house to the front.
16. Under cross-examination, the First Claimant gave the following evidence:
“….. I was born in 1972. I was 7 years old in 1979… I was not aware that in 1978 my
father constructed small concrete structure…I am aware that father was not owner of land.
I am aware he was a tenant. I don't know how long his tenancy was for… I say father gave
permission to Aldwyn in 1979. I don't mention family meeting or being present for any
conversation between father and Aldwyn. I don't say that father told me about arrangement
in 1979. I don't say I was told about arrangement by Aldwyn. At time of arrangement I was
7. When I spoke at para 5 of permission given to Aldwyn in 1979 I am not saying that based
on my knowledge. I am saying that based on what someone else told me. I did not say in
Witness Statement that my mother said that to me. I say that Aldwyn spent $30,000.00. I
don't say that Aldwyn told me that. I don't say my father told me that. I don't say that mother
told me that. When I say that, it is not based on my own knowledge. It is based on what
someone told me. Aldwyn told me that…
I don't recall going to back when structure was being built. I don't recall going back to
front structure. I was too young to remember.”
Kathleen Holder
17. Kathleen Holder gave evidence that Virdy gave Aldwyn the back portion of the subject land
to build a place for himself as the tapia house in which they lived was too crowded. She went
further to state that Aldwyn built the disputed house while he was working as a Labourer at
the Ministry of Works and Transport and got assistance from Roland Paul and Joseph
Williams.
18. However, under cross-examination, Ms. Holder admitted that her evidence was based on what
Aldwyn told her and she did not speak to Virdy on the issue. She also admitted that she did not
know if what Aldwyn told her was the truth.
Page 11 of 42
Aldwyn King
19. In his Witness Statement, Aldwyn stated that he was the owner of the disputed house since
1979 up until 1997, when he sold it to the Claimants along with the disputed land. He also
stated that in 1979 he was employed as a labourer in the Ministry of Works and Transport and,
with the encouragement and permission of his father, Virdy, he erected a three bedroom
concrete dwelling house with wooden partitions on the back portion of the subject land at a
cost of approximately $30,000.00. Aldwyn also stated that Roland Paul and Joseph Williams
assisted him in building the disputed house which he moved into in or about 1980, along with
the said Roland Paul.
20. He further stated that in or around 1982 Virdy demolished the tapia house so that he could
replace it with an upstairs concrete house and during the construction phase Virdy and his
family resided in the disputed house.
21. Under cross-examination, Aldwyn stated as follows in relation to his construction and
ownership of the disputed house:
“I was employed by Ministry of Works. I was employed full time by age of 15. That was
1975. I exhibit record of service ‘AK 1’. I see 5 columns. I see column marked substantive
rate. I see numbers for number of days worked. Some of sums I received I expended on
myself personally.
I say father gave me permission to construct house at back. I requested his permission to
construct house at back. I knew it was not owned by father. I did not know if he had
obtained permission to construct house from landlords. I spent about $30,000.00. I moved
in in 1980. I did not take loan to construct house. I did so from my earnings and help from
relatives. It was from my own money. From 1975 to 1980 based on record of service I
would not have earned $30,000.00. I have not said I earned income from other
employment.”
The Defendant’s Evidence
Geraldine Hypolite - Defendant
22. In her Witness Statement, the Defendant gave evidence that she was born in November 1978
and that she has 6 siblings, Aldwyn, Glen, Sheryl, Kelvin, Ian and Kathleen King. Her father,
Page 12 of 42
Virdy, and her mother, Vera, and all the children lived in a tapia house at the front of the subject
parcel of land until April 1979 when she got married and moved out for one year. Thereafter,
she returned with her husband and her infant son.
23. In or about 1975, Virdy built a small one room wooden structure and gave permission to
Aldwyn, Glen and two cousins from Cedros, Sookram Paul and Carlo Paul, to stay in the
wooden structure. In or about 1978, Virdy built a small three room concrete structure (“the
disputed house”) with a wooden kitchen frame at the back of the subject land to temporarily
accommodate the family while a proposed 2 storey structure was being built. Her father built
the concrete structure with his own resources and with no financial help from anyone and
everyone, except the boys, went to the concrete back structure.
24. At the time when the disputed house was built, Aldwyn was 18 years old, temporarily
employed as a daily paid worker with the Ministry of Works and Transport, unmarried and he
did not have any children. Aldwyn never owned the disputed house or contributed to its
construction. Sometime in or about 1982, the tapia house was demolished and construction of
the two storey house commenced. When the first level of the two storey house was completed
the family, except Aldwyn, moved to that structure and Aldwyn was given permission by Virdy
to live in the concrete house at the back of the subject land. By that time, her two cousins had
moved back to Cedros. Aldwyn moved into the disputed house but at that time he did not have
any family.
25. Under cross-examination the Defendant stated as follows:
“…. My father erected the house to the back. He started around 1978. It was never really
completed before we moved in. It was completed while we were in it. I don't know how
much he spent to complete that house. My father actually built that house… He was also a
builder and he got help from his friends for labour… It took a couple years from when he
started and when we moved in. It took approximately 2 years to build the back house.
There was tapia house to the front which was broken down in 1982… Aldwyn did not
occupy house to the back from 1979. I said we lived in tapia house until 1982 and I said
we moved in 1980. We moved there in 1982. Aldwyn was not there in 1979.
I heard my lawyer ask Aldwyn if my father gave him permission to live there. It is not true
that Aldwyn lived there in 1979. I said house to back began in 1978. I said it was temporary
Page 13 of 42
to accommodate the family when the 2 storey structure was being built… I don't why my
father put up a concrete structure as a temporary structure… Aldwyn was given permission
to live in house to back when we moved to the front…
I don't agree that Aldwyn constructed house to back in 1979 with the assistance of Roland
Paul and Joseph Williams. I disagree that he and Roland Paul entered into occupation of
house after. When family moved into structure Aldwyn was given permission to move in…I
was not present when father told Aldwyn he could move in there. I know this because that
is what Daddy said to me. I know he allowed Aldwyn alone to move in because there was
no room in the front house.”
Kelvin King
26. In his Witness Statement, Kelvin gave evidence that he was born in July 1966 and that he and
his six siblings and his mother and father lived in a tapia house that was located at the front of
the subject land until around 1979 when the Defendant got married and moved out. In or about
1975, his father, Virdy, built a small one room wooden structure on the subject land and gave
permission to Alwyn, Glen and two cousins from Cedros, Sookram and Carlo Paul, to stay in
the wooden structure.
27. In or about 1978, his father built a small three room concrete structure at the back of the subject
land to temporarily accommodate the family while a proposed 2-storey concrete structure was
being built. At the time of the construction of the three room concrete structure, Aldwyn was
18 years old, unmarried and he did not yet have any children and he was temporarily employed
as a daily paid worker.
28. His father built the concrete structure with a wooden kitchen frame and Aldwyn never spent
any money on the disputed house and did not own it. When the concrete structure at the back
was erected, everyone, except the boys, went there and his father indicated this was for privacy
reasons.
29. He further stated that in or about 1982 the tapia house was demolished and construction of the
2-storey house commenced. When the first level of the 2-storey house was constructed, the
family moved back to the front structure and Virdy then gave Aldwyn permission to reside in
the disputed house.
Page 14 of 42
30. Under cross-examination, Kelvin stated as follows:
“… The back house was built between 1978 and early 1980's. My father built house. He
started building back house around 1982. I can't recall how long he took to build the house.
It probably took about a year. Father actually built the house. He did so with some help. I
can't remember who but his friends were there sometimes…
There was a tapia house to the front... The family occupied house until my father built the
house behind. Then we demolished the tapia house. When the house was completed at the
back, the tapia house was demolished. We occupied the tapia house until it was demolished.
I know that Aldwyn lived at back. I cannot recall when he started living there. If Aldwyn
said he started living there in 1979, I cannot recall. My father constructed the house at
back but I can't recall when. I was living there at the time. We moved to the back in 1982
when house to front was being built. When that was built I moved to the front. I cannot
recall if Aldwyn remained to the back. I was living there…”
Sheryl King
31. Sheryl King gave evidence that she was born in September 1964. The entire family lived in a
tapia house at the front of the subject land until around 1979 when Geraldine got married and
moved out.
32. In or about 1975, her father, Virdy, built a small one room wooden structure on the subject
land and gave permission to her brothers, Aldwyn and Glen and two cousins, Sookram and
Carlo Paul, to stay in the wooden structure.
33. In or about 1978, Virdy built a small three room concrete structure at the back of the subject
land to temporarily accommodate the family while a proposed 2 storey structure was being
built. At that time, Aldwyn was about 18 years old, unmarried and he had not yet had children.
He was temporarily employed as a daily paid worker.
34. Her father built the concrete structure with a wooden kitchen frame and Aldwyn never spent
any money on that structure. When this was built, everyone except the boys went to the back
structure and her father indicated that this was for privacy reasons.
35. Sometime in 1982, the tapia house was demolished and construction of the 2 storey house
commenced sometime thereafter. When the first level of the 2 storey structure was completed
Page 15 of 42
the family, except Aldwyn, moved into that structure which comprised 3 bedrooms, living
room, kitchen, toilet and bath.
36. Aldwyn was given permission by Virdy to live in the concrete structure at the back of the
subject land and the wooden structure was then broken down.
37. Aldwyn’s fist son was born in January 1984 and 3 other children were born thereafter. With
Virdy’s permission, Aldwyn resided in the concrete structure at the back because there was
nowhere else for him to go and there was no more room in the first floor of the concrete
structure at the front of the subject land for him and his family.
38. Under cross-examination Sheryl stated as follows:
“… Aldwyn did not build the house around 1979. My father built the house. In 1979 I was
14 or 15. My dad built the house at the back… I can't say exactly how long he took to build
the back house. Probably he took some months.
There was a tapia house to the front. The family occupied the tapia house. The family
stopped occupying the house when the house to the back was finished. We moved into the
back house around 1979… Front house was ready for occupation around 2001. Sorry, it
was around 1981… The house at the front was ready for occupation around 1983-1984…
Aldwyn moved to the back house when we moved into the front structure… He was in
occupation of back house. While we were there he was there too. He remained there when
we moved to front. He alone did not remain to back. Family occupied back and front. It
was not completed. It was done room by room. It was completed after about 2 to 3 years.
That would take us to 1986. Everybody lived at back up to about 1986...
I do not agree that Aldwyn, with help of Roland Paul and Joseph Williams built the back
house. I do not agree that he and Roland Paul lived there. He and girlfriend lived there…
Virdy King
39. In his witness statement, Virdy gave evidence that he started living on the subject land in or
about 1956. There was a tapia house at the front of the subject land which was given to him by
the previous owner. He and his wife, Vera had 7 children, Geraldine (born 1958), Aldwyn
(born 1960), Glen (born 1962) Sheryl (born 1964), Kelvin (born 1966), Ian (born 1971) and
Page 16 of 42
Kathleen (born 1972). The entire family lived in the tapia house until around 1979 when
Geraldine got married and moved out.
40. In or about 1975, he built a one room wooden structure on the subject land and gave permission
to Aldwyn and Glen and two cousins from Cedros, Sookram Paul and Carlo Paul, who were
living with them at the time, to stay in the wooden structure.
41. In or around 1978, he built the disputed house at the back of the subject land to be used as
temporary accommodation for his family while a proposed 2-storey concrete structure was
being constructed. He stated that he built the disputed house with his earnings from the
Ministry of Works and Transport and upon its completion, the entire family with the exception
of the boys (for privacy reasons related to the girls) resided there. He also stated that Aldwyn
was 18 years old, temporarily employed, unmarried and had no children at the time that the
disputed house was being built. Virdy denied that he gave Aldwyn permission to erect the
disputed house or that Aldwyn contributed to its construction.
42. Under cross-examination, Virdy gave the following evidence:
“… It is not so that Aldwyn built the back house. I built the back house. I can't remember
exactly when I built it. I can't remember exact date when I finished the back house. I can't
remember the date or the year. I can't remember how long I took to build the house. I can't
remember how much I spent to build the house. My daughter was there too. I alone built
that house. I received assistance from my friends and workers where I used to work, friends
and so forth. I built house at back to stay in while I was building the front. It was a
temporary structure. I built it as a temporary concrete structure. I had a little change and
I used it….It is correct what I said in witness statement that I built concrete structure at
back in 1978. It is correct that in 1982 I demolished tapia house. I said in witness statement
that “in or after this I decided to build 2-storey concrete house to replace the tapia house.”
That is correct. Before I decided to build the 2-storey concrete house, I had built the
concrete house at the back. I said that in or after I demolished tapia house I decided in
1982 to build a 2-storey house. I cannot remember the date.
Shown para 8 of Witness Statement
I cannot read that. My eyes giving me trouble. I said I built temporary concrete structure
at back in 1978.
Page 17 of 42
(Witness complains that he is tired sitting down. He prefers to stand.)
The house at the back was a temporary structure. I can’t remember the year you are
speaking about.”
Analysis and Findings
43. In my evaluation of the evidence, I am guided by the decision in Reid v Charles and Bain1
where the Privy Council emphasized that where the Court is confronted with an acute conflict
of evidence between opposing parties, although the impression which the evidence makes upon
the judge is of the greatest importance, a wrong impression can be gained if this is solely relied
upon. Lord Acker stated as follows:
“... In such a situation, where the wrong impression can be gained by the most experienced
of judges if he relies solely on the demeanour of the witnesses, it is important for him to
check that impression against contemporary documents, where they exist, against the
pleaded case and against the inherent probability or improbability of the rival contentions,
in the light in particular of facts and matters which are common ground or unchallenged,
or disputed only as an afterthought or otherwise in a very unsatisfactory manner. Unless
this approach is adopted, there is a real risk that the evidence will not be properly
evaluated and the trial judge will in the result have failed to take proper advantage of
having seen and heard the witnesses."
44. The Claimants’ case is that Virdy gave permission to Aldwyn to erect a concrete structure at
the back of the subject parcel of land to accommodate himself, his wife and his children for
the rest of his life.2
45. As the evidence unfolded at the trial, however, it became clear that neither the Claimant nor
her witness, Kathleen Holder, were able to give any helpful evidence from their personal
knowledge about the erection of the concrete house by either Virdy or Aldwyn. In the case of
the First Claimant, she was only seven years old at the time when she alleged the disputed
house was erected and she was compelled to admit that she had no personal knowledge about
her father giving Aldwyn permission to erect the disputed house or about how much was spent
1 Privy Council Appeal No. 36 of 1987 at page 6. 2 Para. 4 of Statement of Case
Page 18 of 42
by Aldwyn in such construction. She was merely repeating what she had been told by Aldwyn.
In the case of Kathleen Holder, she also admitted that her evidence about Virdy giving Aldwyn
the back portion of land to build a place for himself and about Aldwyn building the house with
the help of Roland Paul and Joseph Williams was based on what she had been told by Aldwyn.
Accordingly, I place no weight on the evidence of either of these witnesses in determining this
issue of fact.
46. Aldwyn King was 19 years old in 1979. The unchallenged evidence is that he was not yet
married and he had no children. He was employed as a labourer in the Ministry of Works.
According to the unchallenged evidence adduced by the Defendant’s witnesses, he was living
in a one room wooden structure which Virdy had built since 1979 together with his brother
and his 2 cousins. Virdy, his wife and their other 5 children were living in a two room tapia
house located to the front of the subject land.
47. According to Aldwyn, Virdy gave him verbal permission to erect a concrete house and told
him he could live there for life. He proceeded to erect a 3 bedroom concrete house with wooden
partitions at a cost of approximately $30,000 with the help of his cousin, Roland Paul and his
uncle, Joseph Williams. Sometime in 1980, he moved into the disputed house with Roland
Paul.
48. The first observation I wish to make is that there is conflict between the pleading that Virdy
gave Aldwyn permission to erect the structure “to accommodate his wife and his children” and
Aldwyn’s evidence. Aldwyn gave no evidence that he was married or had children in 1979 and
there was no challenge in cross examination to the evidence of Sheryl King that Aldwyn’s first
child was born in 1984 and that he had 3 children thereafter. Secondly, Aldwyn’s evidence
about his expenditure of $30,000 was significantly undermined in cross-examination. He
admitted that between 1975 and 1980, he had not earned $30,000 from his employment as a
labourer. He did not say that he earned money from any other employment and he did not take
a loan to construct the house. Therefore, he could not explain how he spent that amount when
out of what he earned he admitted spending some on his personal expenses.
49. The Defendant’s case is that in 1978 Virdy built the disputed house to provide temporary
accommodation for his family. At that time, Virdy, his wife and five of their children lived in
a two room tapia house at the front of the subject land and Aldwyn, Glen, Sookram and Carlo
Page 19 of 42
stayed in the one room wooden structure that Virdy had built in 1975. In 1982, the Town and
Country Planning Division granted permission to Virdy to construct a two storey concrete
dwelling house to the front of the subject land.
50. The Defendant, Kelvin and Sheryl all gave evidence that Virdy had built the one room wooden
structure in 1975 and that thereafter Aldwyn, Glen, Sookram and Carlo stayed there. The rest
of the family lived in the two room tapia house until the Defendant moved out in 1979.
Although Virdy was unable to recall the exact dates when he built the disputed house at the
back, when he finished it or how much he spent, he was not shaken in his testimony that he
had built it, and not Aldwyn, for his family to stay while he was building the front building
that he sought and obtained approval to build. He also produced the Town and Country
Planning Division Permission to develop the lands which shows that an application dated 12th
January 1982 was submitted on the 1st March 1982 and the permission was issued on the 7th
April 1982.
51. Given the passage of at least 35 years between the alleged erection of the disputed house and
the dates when the evidence was being given by the witnesses at the trial, I am not surprised
that the memories of all the witnesses may have dimmed and that they would have struggled
to recall with clarity the events of that period. In my opinion, the determination of this issue
requires me to weigh up the evidence of the witnesses, especially Aldwyn and Virdy, against
the inherent probability or improbability of the rival contentions as well as the contemporary
documents from that period and the unchallenged facts.
52. The unchallenged facts are that by 1975, there were 11 persons living on the subject land:
Virdy and his wife, their 7 children and the two cousins from Cedros, Sookram and Carlo.
They were all living in a two room tapia house until Virdy built a one room wooden structure
for the four boys to live in, namely Aldwyn, Glen, Sookram and Carlo. Aldwyn was 18 years
old, unmarried and he had no children.
53. According to Aldwyn, he completed construction of the disputed house by 1980 and then he
and Roland Paul moved in. It was not until 1982 when Virdy demolished the tapia house and
began construction of the 2 storey dwelling house that the family moved into the disputed
house.
Page 20 of 42
54. According to the Defendant’s witnesses, Virdy built the disputed house in 1978 and moved in
after completion. In 1982, he demolished the tapia house and began construction of the 2 storey
house on the front portion of the subject land.
55. The questions I ask myself, therefore, are as follows:
a. Is it more probable that Virdy would give permission to and actively encourage Aldwyn
to erect a three bedroom concrete house for him to live in for the rest of his life or that
Virdy would erect a three bedroom house to house his expanding family until he could
construct a larger 2-storey dwelling house on the same spot where the tapia house was
built?
b. Is it more probable that Aldwyn erected the disputed house by 1980 on his income as
a labourer at the Ministry of Works or that Virdy erected the disputed house from his
earnings?
c. Is it more probable that after completion of the disputed house, Aldwyn resided therein
with Roland Paul between 1980 and 1982 while the rest of the family continued to
occupy the 2 room tapia house or that Virdy erected the disputed house in or around
1978 and moved into it with his family as soon as it was complete until he had the
necessary permission to construct the 2 storey house in 1982?
56. In my opinion, it is more probable that Virdy would have taken on the responsibility for
providing suitable and more comfortable accommodation for his large family in the same way
that he had built the one room wooden structure in 1975 for the 4 boys. Although the Town
and Country Planning Permission was issued in April 1982, it is consistent with the evidence
of Virdy that he built the disputed house as a temporary structure until he could build the 2
storey structure and that he demolished the tapia house and began the construction of the 2
storey structure on the same front portion of land.
57. Further, based on the records produced by Aldwyn, in 1975, he earned $576.36 for 36 days. In
1976, he earned $792.45 for 45 days. In 1977, he earned $4235.46 for 219 days. In 1978, he
earned $5,013.30 for 255 days. In1979, he earned $8,813.97 for 261 days. In 1980, he earned
$9,236.40 for 258 days. This amounts to $28,667.94 for the period 1975 to 1980. He did not
say that he earned income from other employment and he said he did not take a loan to
Page 21 of 42
construct the disputed house. He also said that he spent some of the money he earned on himself
which would have depleted the money available to construct the disputed house. This makes
the evidence of Aldwyn incredible that he built the three bedroom concrete structure at a cost
of $30,000. I consider it more probable that Virdy would have been in a better financial position
than Aldwyn to erect the disputed house.
58. Further, I am of the opinion that it is more probable that Virdy erected the disputed house and
moved in with his family prior to 1982 and that the family resided there until planning
permission was granted in 1982, the tapia house was demolished and construction of the 2
storey house commenced.
59. In the circumstances, on a balance of probabilities, I accept the evidence of the Defendant’s
witnesses and find that the disputed house was erected by Virdy and not Aldwyn.
ISSUE II: DID THE CLAIMANTS PURCHASE THE DISPUTED HOUSE FROM
ALDWYN FOR $43,000 IN OR AROUND 1997, WITH THE PERMISSION OF VIRDY?
The Statement of Case
60. In her Statement of Case, the Claimants alleged that in or about 1997 Aldwyn, with the oral
permission and consent of Virdy, sold the disputed house to the Claimants for $43,000.
The Claimants’ Evidence
Aldwyn King
61. In his witness statement, Aldwyn stated that sometime in 1997 he returned to Trinidad from
the United States of America and he and the Claimants visited Virdy at his residence at
Cunupia. On that occasion, Virdy gave him oral permission and consent to sell the disputed
house that he had erected to the Claimants. Therefore, he agreed with the Claimants to sell the
disputed house and the disputed land to them for $43,000. The Second Claimant and Aldwyn
signed a memorandum of acknowledgement dated 24th March, 1997. On the same day it was
agreed that the Claimants would pay one half of the electricity and water bill as Aldwyn had
done previously. On the 26th March, 2009, Aldwyn formally assigned his rights to the disputed
house to the Claimants by a Deed of Assignment of Chattel.
Page 22 of 42
62. Under cross-examination, Aldwyn gave evidence that the purpose of the meeting with his
father was to get his father’s permission to sell the disputed house to the First Claimant because
it was a family property and “we wanted the entire family to be satisfied because of the future
well-being of other siblings. I wanted them to be satisfied. It is not the real reason that I was
not the owner of the house.” Further, he admitted that the memorandum of acknowledgement
did not refer to a purchase price of $43,000 or any purchase price and he did not exhibit any
receipts for payments by the Claimants of instalments amounting to $43,000. Further, he
insisted that by 2009, the Claimants had paid the purchase price of $43,000 and so he signed
the Deed of Assignment. However, when confronted about the computation of the amount paid
by the Claimants, he admitted that if the Claimants had paid $100.00 per month from March
1997 to March 2009, the Second Claimant would not have paid $43,000 but only $21,400.
63. Aldwyn was also cross-examined about a letter dated 16th May, 2000 written by him to the
First Claimant. In this letter, Aldwyn stated, inter alia, as follows:
“First the back house belongs to me I put each block there by myself Roland was the only
person to give me a hand I spent over 20,000 dollars in there.”
64. With respect to this letter, Aldwyn said that he referred to the disputed house as his own and
did not mention that he had agreed to sell the disputed house to the Claimants because the
Second Claimant was still paying for it.
Kathleen Baptiste – First Claimant
65. In her witness statement, the First Claimant stated that sometime in 1997 Aldwyn returned to
Trinidad and she, her husband and Aldwyn visited Virdy at Cunupia where he gave oral
permission and consent to Aldwyn to sell the disputed house that he had erected to her and her
husband. Thereafter, Aldwyn sold the disputed house to the Claimants for $43,000 and he and
the Second Claimant signed a memorandum of acknowledgement dated 24th March, 1997. She
also stated that the assignment of Virdy’s interest to the Defendant was subject to her interest
in the disputed house. She denied that Virdy or the Defendant ever granted a licence to the
Claimants to live in the disputed house and insisted that she and the Second Claimants were
the owners of the disputed house. She stated further that on 3rd November, 2008, she was served
with a Notice to quit by the Defendant and on 6th March, 2009, Aldwyn formally assigned his
rights in the house to her and her husband. On 15th March, 2009, the Defendant issued an
Page 23 of 42
ejectment summons against her which was returnable on the 24th March 2009 in the Port of
Spain Magistrates’ Court.
66. Under cross-examination, the First Claimant stated that Aldwyn requested Virdy’s permission
to sell the disputed house to her because “he wanted everybody to be happy with his decision
to sell me the house.” As far as she was aware, the Second Claimant paid the sum of $43,000
to Aldwyn but the Second Claimant was not called as a witness. She also admitted that the
Deed of Assignment from Virdy to the Defendant did not expressly state it was made subject
to her interest in the disputed house. She also accepted that “my interest in the house is based
on Aldwyn’s interest in the house. If he does not have an interest in the house, I don’t have any
interest in the house.” She also gave the following evidence that I consider quite significant
and relevant to this issue:
“The Defendant issued ejectment proceedings and I was forced to bring these proceedings.
I did so to prevent me and my family being put out. My brother had written to me in 2000
to say that he would do anything to assist me to ensure that I was not thrown out. I entered
into an arrangement to purchase the house at back. We signed assignment in March 2009—
26th March 2009. Summons was to appear on 15th March 2009. Husband paid pursuant to
agreement. We had paid off the $43,000. I am aware that husband had only paid $21,400
up to that time. A few days after the hearing I signed assignment”
67. Further, although the First Claimant said she had seen receipts signed by Joseph Williams for
the payments made by the Second Claimant at her home, she did not annex any receipts to her
Witness Statement or include them in her list of documents. Also, she could not explain why
she had not done so or why the Second Claimant did not give evidence at the trial.
The Defence
68. In her Defence, the Defendant denied that Virdy gave permission to Aldwyn to sell the disputed
house to the Claimant and that Aldwyn ever owned the same. She alleged that when Aldwyn
migrated to the United States of America, Virdy granted the First Claimant permission to reside
in the disputed house with her family rent-free. When Virdy transferred his interest in the
disputed property to her in 2001, she then gave the First Claimant a licence to reside in the
disputed property with her family rent-free but she was to pay the electricity and water rates.
In or about March 2000, Virdy had a meeting with all persons residing on the subject land
Page 24 of 42
including the Claimants, Sheryl and Kelvin King. Virdy indicated his intention to transfer the
subject land to the Defendant and the Claimants did not raise any objection.
The Defendant’s Evidence
Geraldine King – Defendant
69. The Defendant gave evidence in her witness statement that Aldwyn had Virdy’s permission
for his family to reside in the disputed property as there was nowhere else for him to go and
there was no more room in the first floor of the concrete structure. In 1994, Aldwyn went to
the United States of America to participate in a karate tournament and stayed on. In 1995,
Aldwyn returned briefly and then went back to the United States of America with his wife,
Indira, leaving his children with the First Claimant. At that time, the First Claimant started
staying in the disputed house off and on. In March 1997, Aldwyn returned and took his children
with him to the United States of America leaving the disputed house empty. The Claimants
and their children then moved into the disputed house with Virdy’s knowledge and permission.
In or about the end of 1997, there was a family meeting attended by Virdy, her mother,
Kathleen, Kelvin, Sheryl, the Defendant and her husband. Virdy indicated his intention to
transfer his interest in the subject land to the Defendant and there was no objection from the
First Claimant and she did not say anything about owning the disputed house.
70. Under cross-examination, the Defendant admitted that she was not present when Virdy gave
permission to Aldwyn to move into the disputed house and her evidence was based on what
Virdy said to her. She also contradicted her pleading when she stated that there were two family
meetings, one in March 1997 and another in March 2000 although she did not refer to a 1997
meeting in her Defence. Further, she stated that she did not attend the meeting in 2000 but was
only saying what Virdy told her about that meeting. She also accepted that by March 2000 her
mother had died and could not have been present for any such meeting. She denied that the
meetings were a complete fabrication on her part. She said that Virdy told her he was the tenant
of the land and the owner of the dwelling house to the front and she stated that Virdy never
transferred the disputed house to her.
Page 25 of 42
Virdy King
71. In his witness statement, Virdy stated that he did not give permission to anybody to sell the
disputed house because Aldwyn never owned that structure. He also gave evidence that when
Aldwyn took the children with him to the United States of America in 1997, the disputed house
was empty and the First Claimant moved into it with his permission and knowledge. In or about
1997, he heard from Sheryl that Aldwyn had sold the disputed house to the First Claimant for
$7,000. He went to the First Claimant and asked her about the sale but she denied that and said
that Aldwyn had only sold her the furniture and he accepted her explanation. About the end of
1997, he held a meeting with his wife, Kathleen, Sheryl, Kelvin, the Defendant and her husband
at which he indicated his intention to transfer his interest to the Defendant. There was no
objection to this and the First Claimant did not say anything about owning the disputed house.
72. Under cross-examination, Virdy stated that the First Claimant used to live in the disputed house
when she was taking care of Aldwyn’s children and when Aldwyn went away, she continued
to live there. He said that he did not know anything about the First Claimant paying Aldwyn
for the disputed house and he asked rhetorically, “How can you pay for something you don’t
own. I heard something like that but how could you sell something you don’t own? He also
denied that he had any conversation with the First Claimant after Aldwyn left Trinidad and
said, “When I heard that Kathleen bought the back house, what do you want me to do? If you
selling what is not yours, I can’t do anything. I can't beat them. ”
73. In answer to the Court, Virdy said that Town and Country told him he was to demolish the
disputed house because he could not have two structures on the subject land but he did not
demolish house because the First Claimant and the children were at the back.
Analysis and Findings
74. The first important point to note on this issue is that, in the light of my earlier finding that
Virdy erected the disputed house and not Aldwyn, Aldwyn had no share or interest in the
disputed house to sell to the Claimants.
75. Further, and in any event, the burden of proof lay upon the Claimants to prove that they
‘purchased’ the disputed house from Aldwyn, with the verbal permission of Virdy, for $43,000.
In my opinion, the Claimants failed to discharge this burden of proof for the following reasons:
Page 26 of 42
a. I find Aldwyn’s explanation for seeking Virdy’s permission to sell the disputed house
to the Claimants to be illogical and incredible because it is inconsistent with his
contention that since 1978 he had been given permission by Virdy to build the disputed
house and that he had been told that he could live there for life;
b. The First Claimant’s evidence about the agreement to purchase the disputed house for
$43,000 is not supported by the memorandum of acknowledgement signed by Aldwyn
and the Second Claimant. There is no mention therein of the purchase price. Further,
the First Claimant failed to produce any receipts to prove that the Claimants paid that
price and she readily admitted that at the rate of $100 per month the total amount that
had been paid is only $21,400;
c. In my opinion, the assignment from Aldwyn to the Claimants in March 2009 is
consistent with Aldwyn’s desire to ensure that the First Claimant was not kicked out of
the disputed house, as expressed in his letter dated 16th May, 2000. The Defendant filed
an ejectment complaint against the First Claimant which had been listed for hearing on
the 24th March 2009. According to the First Claimant, a few days after the hearing,
Aldwyn executed a Deed of Assignment in favour of the Claimants in respect of an
alleged agreement to purchase the disputed house entered into in 1997 and in respect
of which no evidence was produced to this Court by the Claimants that they had in fact
paid $43,000 to Aldwyn. In the circumstances, I do not accept that the Claimants paid
Aldwyn $43,000 for the disputed house and I believe that the 2009 assignment was
intended to assist the Claimants in their efforts to resist the Defendant’s action to
recover possession; and
d. Despite the Defendant’s lack of personal knowledge about Virdy giving permission to
Aldwyn to reside in the disputed house and her contradictory evidence about the family
meetings, this does not alter the fact that the Claimants bore the burden of proof of the
agreement to purchase and the payment of the purchase price. Further, I consider that,
despite his inability to recall dates and the contradiction in his evidence about not
speaking to the First Claimant after he heard that she had agreed to purchase the
disputed house, Virdy’s evidence under cross-examination was consistent with his
Page 27 of 42
testimony that he built the disputed house and as a consequence Aldwyn could not sell
what did not belong to him.
76. In the circumstances, I find that the Claimants have failed to prove that they purchased the
disputed house from Aldwyn for $43,000, with the permission of Virdy.
ISSUE III: DID THE DEFENDANT GRANT THE CLAIMANTS A LICENCE TO
CONTINUE TO RESIDE IN THE DISPUTED HOUSE RENT FREE AFTER SHE
ACQUIRED VIRDY’S LEASEHOLD INTEREST AND THE FREEHOLD INTEREST OF
THE LESSORS IN THE SUBJECT LAND? IF SO, WAS THIS LICENCE REVOKED BY
THE DEFENDANT?
77. It is not in dispute between the parties that by 1995 Aldwyn had migrated to the United States
of America with his wife and that the First Claimant took care of his children until he returned
for them in 1997. It is also not in dispute that after 1997, the Claimants and their children
resided in the disputed house. I have already found that they did not purchase the disputed
house from Aldwyn in 1997. Therefore, the question is, on what basis did they remain in
occupation of the disputed house after that date?
The Defence
78. According to the Defendant’s Defence, when Aldwyn migrated to the United States of
America, Virdy granted the First Claimant a licence by giving her permission to reside in the
disputed house with her family without the payment of rent. Further, when Virdy transferred
his interest in the subject land to her, she also gave the Claimants a licence to continue to reside
in the disputed property without payment of rent but they were to pay for electricity and water
rates.
79. Further, the Defendant alleged that, by letter dated 13th August, 2008, the Defendant’s
Attorneys-at-Law revoked the licence under which the Claimants resided in the disputed
property.
Page 28 of 42
The Defendant’s Evidence
Virdy King
80. In his witness statement, Virdy stated that when Aldwyn took the children in 1997 the disputed
house was empty and the First Claimant moved into the disputed house with his permission
and knowledge. At that time, the First Claimant had two children and she and the Second
Claimant moved into the disputed house.
81. Under cross-examination, Virdy gave the following evidence:
“I know that Kathleen lives in that house to the back. She started living there but I cannot
recall exact date from when. Aldwyn had children. Kathleen used to take care of children
in that house at the back. She lived there with Aldwyn's children in that house at the back.
When Aldwyn went away, Kathleen continued to live there.”
Geraldine King – Defendant
82. In her witness statement, the Defendant stated that when Aldwyn took the children in 1997 the
disputed house was now empty. The Claimants and their two children moved into the disputed
house with Virdy’s permission and knowledge. After she bought her father’s leasehold interest
and the freehold in 2001, she told everyone that she was now the owner of the subject land and
she specifically told the Claimants that no works were to be done to the disputed house because
on completion of the front two storey structure it would need to be demolished.
83. The Defendant also exhibited to her witness statement the letter dated 13th August, 2008 from
her Attorneys-at-Law which expressly stated, inter alia, as follows:
“Our instructions are to inform your client that the licence granted to her is hereby revoked
and to demand that she vacate the premises on or before he 30th September 2008, failing
which an action for possession will be commenced against her in the High Court without
further notice.”
84. Under cross-examination, this evidence was not challenged by Counsel for the Claimants.
Analysis and Findings
85. In my opinion, the focus of the cross-examination of the Defendant’s witnesses was on trying
to establish that Aldwyn erected the disputed house and that he sold it to the Claimants in 1997
Page 29 of 42
and neither Virdy nor the Defendant were shaken in their evidence about the Claimants being
in occupation of the disputed house with their knowledge and permission. Further, the
Defendant was not challenged on her evidence that she specifically told the Claimants that no
works were to be done to the disputed house because on completion of the front two storey
structure it would need to be demolished.
86. I have already found against the Claimants with respect to the erection of the house by Aldwyn
and the sale of the disputed house by Aldwyn to them. In my opinion, the only reasonable
inferences to be drawn from the evidence are that after Virdy and his family moved back into
the lower level of the two storey structure at the front of the subject land, Virdy permitted
Aldwyn to reside in the disputed house and that he continued to reside there with his wife and
children until 1997, with the permission of Virdy. Further, the Claimants’ continued
occupation of the disputed house between 1997, when Aldwyn had migrated with his wife and
children, and March 2001 was initially with the permission of Virdy and after 2001, was with
the knowledge and permission of the Defendant.
87. In the circumstances, I find that the Defendant granted the Claimants a licence to continue to
reside in the disputed house rent free after she acquired Virdy’s leasehold interest and the
freehold in the subject land and that by letter dated 13th August, 2008 from the Defendant’s
Attorneys-at-Law to the Claimant, this licence was revoked.
ISSUE IV: DID THE CLAIMANTS EFFECT RECONSTRUCTION AND REPAIRS TO
THE DISPUTED HOUSE BETWEEN 2000 AND 2008 AT A COST OF $50,000? IF SO,
WERE THESE WORKS DONE WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT
AND DESPITE PROTESTS BY HER?
The Statement of Case
88. The Claimants alleged that between 2000 and 2008 they tiled the disputed house, changed the
galvanize roof and windows and inner walls into concrete and effected plumbing and electrical
works at a cost of approximately $50,000.
The Claimants’ Evidence
89. In her witness statement, the First Claimant gave evidence that “as owners of the dwelling
house my husband and I have done considerable work on the house, including tiling the floor,
Page 30 of 42
repaired and changed where necessary the kitchen cupboard, changed the wood and galvanise
of the roof, replaced the louvres with French windows, changed the inner walls from wood to
concrete, ceiled the roof of the entire house and effected plumbing and electrical works at a
cost of approximately $50,000.” However, the First Claimant did not say when the works were
effected or annex any bills, receipts or other documentation to show how much was spent or
the breakdown of expenses between labour and materials.
90. The First Claimant also gave evidence that, by letter dated 15th January, 2004, the Defendant’s
Attorney-at-Law wrote to the Claimants complaining that they had not obtained the
Defendant’s permission to carry out works on the disputed house and called upon the
Claimants to desist from doing any further works and the Defendant revoked the licence she
allegedly gave them to reside in the disputed house.
91. The First Claimant was not challenged in cross-examination by Counsel for the Defendant
about the works effected by the Claimants or the cost thereof. However, she gave the following
evidence when questioned about the letter dated 15th January, 2004 from the Defendant’s
Attorney-at-Law:
“Para 18.
Letter was sent by defendant's attorney at law.
Shown KB 3
Para. 2 This paragraph does not say that licence is revoked.
Letter says that we should desist in carrying out works. We carried out works up to 2008.
Even after we got letter we carried out works. There is no response to this letter saying
that we owned house. 4 years after my Attorneys responded. Even though I was told not to
carry out works I did so because I had not seen any document. My attorneys showed me
document in 2008. My father told me he had transferred interest to Geraldine.”
The Defence
92. In answer to this allegation, the Defendant contended that the Claimants conducted works on
the premises without her permission and despite her protests. By a letter dated 15th January,
2004, her Attorneys-at-Law called upon the Claimants to desist from carrying out any further
work on the disputed house without the Defendant’s permission. Accordingly, the Defendant
Page 31 of 42
contended that the works done by the Claimants at their own risk and are not to be
compensated.
The Defendant’s Evidence
93. The Defendant gave evidence that after she purchased Virdy’s leasehold interest and the
freehold in 2001 she told everyone she was now the owner of the subject land. Further, she
specifically told the Claimants that no works were to be done on the disputed house because
on completion of the front two storey structure it would need to be demolished. However, the
Claimants, without her permission and despite her protest, conducted works on the premises
by building a steel gate adjoining the front structure blocking off access to the back portion of
the property. As a consequence, by letter dated 15th January, 2004, her Attorneys-at-Law,
Alexander, Jeremie & Co. called upon the Claimants to desist from carrying out any further
works. The letter stated as follows:
“Re: Property situate at L.P. 53, Pundit Street, El Socorro, San Juan
We act on behalf of Geraldine Hypolite who purchased the above-mentioned property in
2001.
Our instructions are that upon acquiring the said property she granted you a licence to
occupy same until such time as she revokes the licence.
We are instructed that recently you carried out work on the property without our client’s
permission – you “inter alia” demolished the then existing garage gate and replaced it
with an iron gate.
Our instructions are to call upon you to desist from carrying out further work on our
client’s property and to advise you that you will not be compensated for any work already
completed by you.
Please be guided accordingly.”
94. By letter dated 20th June, 2008, the Claimants’ Attorney-at-Law wrote to the Defendant stating
as follows:
Page 32 of 42
“I represent your sister Ms. Kathleen King who informs me that she is the owner of a
concrete dwelling house situate at 23 Pundit Street, El Socorro road, San Juan and that
you are the owner of the other building and the tenant of the lot of land on which it stands.
I am instructed that recently you requested my client to get rid of her dogs and prevented
her from placing her tank at the side of the house and told her to refrain from doing
anything on the said parcel of land.
I am therefore to request you to refrain forthwith from interfering with my client’s quiet
enjoyment of the said premises.
My client is without prejudice to her right prepared either to purchase your share and
interest in the property or to sell you her share and interest in same.
Kindly therefore let me know within fourteen days of the date hereof what you propose to
do to have the matter resolved and I trust that you would not interfere with my client’s
enjoyment failing which proceedings would be instituted in Court to prevent you from so
doing”
95. By letter dated 13th August, 2008, the Defendant’s said Attorney-at-Law responded as follows:
“Reference is made to yours dated 20th June 2008.
We act for Geraldine Hypolite in this matter.
Kindly be informed that our client is the owner of the subject parcel of land and dwelling
house, hereinafter referred to as “the premises”) situated at Light Pole 53 Pundit Street,
El Socorro, San Juan by virtue of:
1) Deed No. DE 200101367464D000 made on the 27th March 2001 by which our
client’s father transferred his leasehold interest in the said land and the dwelling
house thereon to her, and
2) Deed No. DE 20010136758D000 made on the 27th March 2001 by which
Chandrahanse Maharaj and Narendra Maharaj transferred the freehold interest in
the said land to our client.
Your client resides on this property and was reminded by letter dated 15th January 20014
from attorney at law for our client, that she was granted a licence to occupy the premises
Page 33 of 42
and that the work she carried out on the premises was without our client’s permission. She
was also asked to desist from carrying out any further work and reminded that she would
not be compensated for any work already completed by her.
A copy of the above-mentioned Deeds and letter dated 15th January 2004 are attached for
your attention.
Our instructions are to inform your client that the licence granted to her is hereby revoked
and to demand that she vacate the premises on or before the 30th September 2008, failing
which an action for possession will be commenced against her in the High Court without
further notice.”
96. The Claimants’ Attorney-at-Law responded by letter 26th August 2008 stating as follows:
“I refer to your letter to me dated 13th August 2008.
I write to make it clear that there are two buildings standing on the said parcel of land.
The building to the back is a concrete structure comprising three bedrooms which was
purchased by my clients from Aldwyn King the brother of Kathleen King. Enclosed please
find an acknowledgement of same from Aldwyn King. The other buildings to the front was
owned by your client’s father.
As a consequence it is my client’s contention that your client is not entitled to the building
to the back and is therefore not entitled to enter same for any purpose unless she obtains
the permission of my clients to do so.
My clients are still prepared to either sell their share and interest or purchase your client’s
share and interest in the said property.
Please therefore be guided accordingly and let me know our client’s position in the
matter.”
97. By letter dated 2nd October, 2008, the Defendant’s Attorneys-at-Law responded as follows:
“Reference is made yours dated 26th August 2008.
We note that the acknowledgement attached to the above mentioned matter states that
Jason Baptiste “agree(s) to purchase the building and contents of premises at 53 Pundit
Street, El Socorro, San Juan now occupied by Aldwyn King on the immediate payment of
Page 34 of 42
$7,000.00 the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged and a further payment of $100.00
per month towards the purchase price of the building and lands thereon”.
Please be advised that this does not constitute evidence that:
(a) Aldwyn King built/owned the house; or that
(b) Jason Baptiste purchased the house.
Further the acknowledgement mentioned payment for the building and land thereon. The
land is not owned by Mr. King and he could not therefore have sold it.
We state again that the subject house is owned by Ms. Geraldine Hypolite and we remind
you that your client was given notice to quit the said house on or before the 30th September
2008.”
98. The Claimants’ Attorney-at-Law responded to this letter by an undated letter which stated as
follows:
“I refer to your letter to me dated 2nd October 2008.
It was never my client’s contention that the acknowledgement constituted evidence that
Aldwyn King built/owned the house as such. It is my client’s contention however that he
purchased the house from Aldwyn King who owned the house and who was given the parcel
of land by his father to construct the said house.
It is my opinion therefore that Mr. Aldwyn King was the owner of the house and had an
equitable interest in the parcel of land which he conveyed to my client.
My client intends to stoutly resist any attempt by your client to evict him and his family
from the said property.
Please therefore be guided accordingly.”
99. Under cross-examination, the Defendant was not challenged with respect to her evidence that
after she acquired the subject land, she specifically told the Claimants that no works were to
be done to the disputed house because, on completion of the front 2-storey structure, it would
need to be demolished. Further, she was not challenged with respect to any of the
correspondence and in particular, the letter dated 15th January, 2004 from the Defendant’s
Attorneys-at-Law to the Claimants.
Page 35 of 42
Analysis and Findings
100. In the circumstances, I find that the Claimants carried out the works identified by the First
Claimant between 2000 and 2008. However, since the First Claimant did not particularise the
breakdown of the cost of the works or the dates when these works were carried or annex any
documentary evidence in support of the expenditure, I am unwilling to make a finding that the
Claimants expended approximately $50,000 in carrying out these works.
101. In any event, in the light of the evidence given by the First Claimant under cross-
examination and the unchallenged evidence of the Defendant, I find that the Claimants were
informed, both verbally by the Defendant and in writing by the Defendant’s Attorneys-at-Law,
of the Defendant’s ownership of the subject land. Notwithstanding such knowledge and the
express prohibition by the Defendant against doing any works on the disputed house after she
acquired the subject land, the Claimants persisted in carrying out works on the disputed house
at their own expense, without the permission of the Defendant and despite protests by her.
ISSUE V: DID THE CLAIMANTS GIVE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE DEFENDANT
TO PAY THE ELECTRICITY BILLS AND WATER RATES IN RESPECT OF THE
DISPUTED HOUSE AND ARE THEY LIABLE TO THE DEFENDANT IN THE
AMOUNTS OF $1,725.00?
The Defence and Counterclaim
102. In her Defence and Counterclaim, the Defendant alleged that she gave the Claimants a
licence to continue to reside in the disputed house without payment of rent but they agreed to
pay the electricity and water bills while they occupied the premises. In breach of the agreement,
the Claimants failed to pay the electricity bill for the period September 2008 to 22nd January
2009 in the amount of $1,405.00 and the water rate for the period May 2008 to May 2009 in
the amount of $320.00.
The Defendant’s Evidence
103. In her witness statement, the Defendant stated that as part of the Claimants’ licence to
reside in the disputed house, the Claimants agreed to pay the electricity bill and water bill while
they occupied the premises. In breach of that agreement, the Claimants failed to pay the
electricity bill for the period September 2008 to 22nd January 2009 and the water rate for the
Page 36 of 42
period May 2008 to May 2009. The Defendant also exhibited an electricity bill for $1,405.00
in her name. The Defendant did not give any evidence with respect to unpaid water rates.
104. Under cross-examination, the Defendant gave the following evidence:
“I cut their electricity supply in September 2008. I redirected bills to my address.
The Claimants were no longer getting the bills to pay the electricity. I have paid
some of the bills and they have paid some. They have paid the water rates too. They
owe me for the bills I paid. All who used to live there used to contribute to payment
of bills. They used to pay the bills. I don't agree they don't owe me anything.”
The Claimants’ Evidence
105. The First Claimant gave evidence that the Claimants have always paid the outgoings for
the disputed house and when the front house became unoccupied they paid the electricity and
water rates for the entire subject land. In or about September 2008, the Defendant disrupted
their electricity supply and redirected all electricity bill to the Defendant’s current address.
When they went to pay the electricity bill at T&TEC they discovered that the bill was already
paid. Further, because of the disruption in supply, the bill only reflected the amount due and
owing for the front house and not the back house. She stated that the Claimants have always
paid their one half share of the water rates and when the front house became unoccupied in or
about 2004 they paid both the electricity bill and the water rates in respect of both properties.
106. Under cross-examination, the First Claimant gave the following evidence:
“I consulted Attorney in 2004 and continued living there paying bills. I continued
to pay bills up to 2008 and then I stopped. The meter was removed. I can't remember
when it was removed. I did not enter into arrangement to pay half of water bills
and electricity. I paid the bills between 2004 and 2008 when I found out that
defendant was the owner.”
Analysis and Findings
107. In the light of this evidence, I am of the opinion that the Claimants agreed to pay the
electricity bills and water rates in respect of the disputed house and that they continued to do
so until their electricity supply was disrupted in September 2008. However, since the
Defendant admitted that she disrupted the Claimants’ electricity supply in September 2008, I
Page 37 of 42
am of the opinion that she cannot maintain a claim against them for the payment of the
electricity bill for the period September 2008 to January 2009. Further, the Defendant failed to
give any evidence of outstanding water rates. Accordingly, I find that the Defendant failed to
prove that the Claimants are indebted to her in the amount of $1,725.00 or any amount for
unpaid electricity bills and water rates.
ISSUE VI: ARE THE CLAIMANTS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEFS SOUGHT AGAINST
THE DEFENDANT?
108. The Claimants sought to rely on proprietary estoppel to support their claim.
109. Counsel for the Defendant submitted3 that the burden of proof lay upon the Claimants to
prove the elements of their claim so as to ground it in proprietary estoppel. She submitted that
the Claimants must prove that a clear and unequivocal promise was made and if a promise is
equivocal the claim of promissory estoppel will fail. The Claimants must also prove reliance
and detriment which are often intertwined. It was further submitted that the Court in using its
equitable jurisdiction must exercise extreme care. The Defendant relied on the following
authorities in this regard: Snell’s Equity at paras 10-09, 10-17; Sorillo v Donawa, CV2010-
04149; Knowles v Knowles, PCA No. 28 of 2007; Baldeo v Baldeo and Others CV2007-
04311; Thorner v Major and Others [2009] UKHL 18; Gillet v Holt [2001] Ch 210; and
Sledmore v Dalby (1996) 72 P&CR 196.
110. In his submissions,4 Counsel for the Claimants accepted that the Claimants were obliged
to prove their case on a balance of probabilities and submitted that the Claimants had
sufficiently pleaded and proved that a representation was made to both Aldwyn and the
Claimants by Virdy and that they both expended money in reliance on the representations made
to them to their detriment. Counsel further submitted that where the owner of land allows
another person to erect a concrete structure on his land that suggests permanence, the Court
permits the person to remain on the land and even in the absence of a promise made, the
Claimants are entitled to an equitable charge or lien for the amount of money expended or the
value of the building: Dillwyn v Llewelyn 31 LJ Ch. 658 and Chalmers v Pardoe PCA No.
4 of 1962.
3 Defendant’s Written Submissions filed on 6th March, 2015. 4 Claimants’ Written Submissions filed on 24th April, 2015.
Page 38 of 42
111. In Reply,5 Counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Claimants’ reliance on Dillwyn
(supra) for the proposition that the Court will permit someone to remain permanently on land
where the owner has allowed them to erect a concrete structure that suggests permanence, is
not congruent with the modern line of authorities on proprietary estoppel such as Knowles
(supra) and as such should be disregarded by the Court. In addition, the learning therein does
not support the Claimants’ proposition and is entirely distinguishable on the facts. Counsel
also submitted that the Claimants’ reliance on Chalmers (supra) for the proposition of the
Claimants’ entitlement to an equitable charge in respect of the disputed house is dependent on
the establishment of the proprietary estoppel between Virdy and Aldwyn. However, on the
facts of this case, this did not arise.
The Law
112. In the recent Court of Appeal decision in Ralph and Another v Bernard,6 Mendonca JA.
considered the law in relation to the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. He applied several of the
leading authorities and stated as follows:
“In Thorner v Major and Ors. [2009] UKHL 18 Lord Walker pointed out that while there
is no universal definition of proprietary estoppel, which is both comprehensive and
uncontroversial, that most scholars agree that the principle of proprietary estoppel is
based on “three elements, although they express them in slightly different terms; a
representation or assurance made to the claimant; reliance on it by the claimant and
detriment to the claimant in consequence of his (reasonable) reliance…” For a claimant
therefore to properly plead his case in proprietary estoppel, he must set out those three
elements; a representation or assurance, reliance on that representation or assurance and
detriment as a consequence.”
113. In Gillett v. Holt,7 Walker L.J. highlighted the need for the court to examine these elements
in the round as opposed to separate compartments. He put it this way:
“…although the judgment is, for convenience, divided into several sections with headings
which give a rough indication of the subject matter, it is important to note at the outset that
5 Defendant’s Written Submission in Reply filed on 25th May, 2015. 6 Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2011 at para. 38 – Delivered 9th March, 2016. 7 [2001] Ch. 210 at p. 225
Page 39 of 42
the doctrine of proprietary estoppel cannot be treated as subdivided into three or four
watertight compartments. Both sides are agreed on that, and in the course of the oral
argument in this court it repeatedly became apparent that the quality of the relevant
assurances may influence the issue of reliance, that reliance and detriment are often
intertwined, and that whether there is a distinct need for a "mutual understanding" may
depend on how the other elements are formulated and understood. Moreover the
fundamental principle that equity is concerned to prevent unconscionable conduct
permeates all the elements of the doctrine. In the end the court must look at the matter in
the round.”
Analysis and Findings
114. In the light of my earlier findings that:
a. the disputed house was erected by Virdy King and not Aldwyn King;
b. the Claimants have failed to prove that they purchased the disputed house from
Aldwyn for $43,000, with the permission of Virdy;
c. the Defendant granted the Claimants a licence to continue to reside in the disputed
house rent free after she acquired Virdy’s leasehold interest and the freehold in the
subject land and by letter dated 13th August, 2008 from the Defendant’s Attorneys-
at-Law to the Claimants, this licence was revoked; and
d. the Claimants carried out works on the disputed house at their own expense, without
the permission of the Defendant and despite protests by her.
I find that the Claimants are not entitled to the reliefs sought in their Statement of Case for
the following reasons:
a. In her evidence, the First Claimant made it clear that she was not relying on any
representation made to her by Virdy or the Defendant but was relying on Aldwyn’s
interest in the disputed house which he had agreed to sell to the Claimants in 1997.
As she put it, “I say that we are the owners of the house because we purchased it
from Aldwyn. My interest in the house is based on Aldwyn’s interest in the house.
If he does not have an interest in the house, I don’t have an interest in the house.”
Further, in respect of the monies expended by the Claimants in effecting repairs on
Page 40 of 42
the disputed house, she did not allege or give evidence that they did so in reliance
on any representation made by Virdy or the Defendant. Instead, she said that the
Claimants effected these repairs because they were the owners of the disputed
house. In the circumstances, having found that Virdy, and not Aldwyn, built the
disputed house and that the Claimants were licensees of Virdy and the Defendant,
I am of the opinion that the Claimants failed to prove the essential elements of
representation, reliance and detriment in order to rely on the doctrine of proprietary
estoppel;
b. The Claimants have sought a declaration that the disputed house and the disputed
land are vested in them in fee simple in equity and an order that the Defendant
execute a conveyance of the disputed house and the disputed land to them. It is not
in dispute that the Defendant is the owner in fee simple of the subject land which
includes the disputed land on which the disputed house was erected. Therefore, in
order to obtain these reliefs, the Claimants need to prove that they are entitled to an
equitable interest in the disputed house and the disputed land which is enforceable
against the Defendant. In my opinion, the Claimants failed to do so. In any event, I
accept the submissions of Counsel for the Defendant that the Claimants are not
entitled to the declaration and order sought against the Defendant since any such
orders would materially affect the interest of Scotiabank Limited as the mortgagee
of the subject land and the Claimants failed to join Scotiabank Limited as a party
to this action: Derrick v Najjar and the Attorney General of Trinidad and
Tobago 1976 28WIR 340; and
c. The Claimants also sought an injunction restraining the Defendants from evicting
or attempting to evict them from the disputed land. Having regard to the failure of
the Claimants to establish any legal or equitable right or interest in the disputed
house or the disputed land and the revocation by the Defendant of their licence
since 2008, the Claimants are not entitled to be in possession of the disputed house
and the disputed land. In fact, since the revocation of the license, they have
remained in possession as trespassers. Accordingly, they are not entitled to the
injunction sought.
Page 41 of 42
115. Accordingly, the Claimants’ claim is hereby dismissed with costs to be paid by the
Claimants to the Defendant in the amount of $14,000.
ISSUE VI: IS THE DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO THE RELIEFS SOUGHT AGAINST
THE CLAIMANTS?
116. The Defendant, in her Counterclaim, sought an order for possession of the piece of parcel
of land situate at 53 Pundit Street, El Socorro, San Juan, repayment of electricity and water
rates, interest and costs. In the light of my earlier findings, I find that the Defendant is not
entitled to succeed in her claim for the payment of electricity bills and water rates or interest
thereon.
117. However, in respect of the claim for possession, the Defendant gave evidence that on
several occasions in 2008, she called upon the Claimants to vacate the subject land. First, by
letter dated 13th August, 2008, the Defendant’s Attorneys-at-Law demanded that the Claimants
vacate the disputed house on or before 30th September 2008. By letter dated 26th August 2008,
the Claimants’ Attorney responded that the Defendant was not entitled to the disputed house
because it had been purchased from Aldwyn. Secondly, by Notice dated 3rd November 2008,
the Defendant again revoked the licence and called upon the Claimants to vacate the disputed
house on or before the 30th November, 2008. Thirdly, on the 9th March 2009, the Defendant
caused to be issued against the Claimants an ejectment complaint.
118. The First Claimant in her evidence admitted that the Defendant’s Attorneys-at-Law had
written to the Claimants on the 13th August, 2008, that she had been served on the 3rd November
2008 with the notice calling upon her to vacate the premises by 30th November 2008 and that
the Defendant had filed an ejectment complaint against her. She contended, however, that the
Claimants were entitled to remain in possession because they were the owners of the disputed
house. In the light of my earlier findings, therefore, I find that the Defendant is entitled to an
order for possession against the Claimants.
119. With respect to costs on the Counterclaim, I will make no order for costs on the
Counterclaim since to do so would result in a duplication of the costs already awarded for
successfully defending the Claimants’ claim.
Page 42 of 42
ORDER
120. In the circumstances, I hereby order that:
a. The Claimants’ claim against the Defendant is dismissed;
b. There be judgment in favour of the Defendant against the Claimants for possession of
the concrete dwelling house and the land on which it stands, located to the back of the
parcel of land situate at Light Pole 53, Pundit Street, El Socorro, San Juan and bounded
on the North by Pundit Street on the East, West and South by lands of heirs of Chanka
Maharaj;
c. The Claimants do deliver up to the Defendant vacant possession of the said concrete
dwelling house and the land on which it stands, on or before 30th August, 2016;
d. The Defendant’s Counterclaim for the repayment of electricity and water rates is
dismissed;
e. The Claimants do pay the Defendant’s costs of the claim in the amount of $14,000; and
f. There be no order as to costs on the Counterclaim.
Dated the 4th day of May, 2016
……………………………..
André des Vignes
Judge