Francis Kentish as Attorney for Geraldine Kentish v Elizabeth Edwards and Arthur Edwards

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: Michel, M.
• Judgment Date: 25 August 2025
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2025] ECSC J0825-1
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. ANUHCV2024/0121
• Court: High Court (Antigua)

Between:

Francis Kentish as Attorney for Geraldine Kentish (Beneficiary of the Estate of Joseph Benjamin O'Garro Aka Benjamin O'Garro, Deceased)

Claimant

and

Elizabeth Edwards and Arthur Edwards (Personal Representatives of Ivan Edwards, Deceased)

Defendants

[2025] ECSC J0825-1

CLAIM NO. ANUHCV2024/0121

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

(CIVIL DIVISION)

Appearances:

Ms. Rose-Mary Reynolds, Counsel for the Claimant

Mr. Jarid Hewlett, Counsel for the 2 ^nd Defendant

DECISION

Michel, M.

1 This is the Court's decision on an application by the 2 ^nd defendant, Arthur Edwards, for summary judgment.

Background

2 The Claimant is the son and Attorney for Gerladine Kentish, daughter and beneficiary of the Estate of Joseph Benjamin O'Garro, deceased and the personal representative of Joseph Benjamin O'Garro, deceased. The defendants, Elizabeth Edwards, deceased and Arthur Edwards were at all material times the personal representatives of Ivan Edwards, deceased and registered proprietors of the property more particularly described in the Land Registry as Registration Section: Falmouth & Bethesda, Block No. 34 2482B; Parcel No. 5. (“ Parcel 5”).

The Claimant's Claim

3 The Claimant commenced these proceedings against the Defendants by way of fixed date claim form together with an affidavit in support, seeking a declaration that the registration of the Defendants on Parcel 5 on 6 ^th December, 1993 is a mistake and an order for the rectification of the said Parcel 5 by cancelling the said registration of the Defendants and apportioning the conveyed plot to the Estate of Joseph Benjamin O'Garro a.k.a Benjamin O'Garro as the registered proprietor pursuant to section 140 of the Registered Land Act.1 A judge subsequently directed that the claim proceed as if commenced by claim form instead of fixed date claim and directed that the Claimant file a statement of claim in place of the affidavit previously filed with the fixed date claim form and the matter be listed before the master for case management.

4 The Claimant filed a statement of claim on 23 ^rd July, 2024. In his statement of claim, he averred that on searching the National Archives regarding the estate of his mother's parents, he obtained a copy of a Conveyance Indenture dated 10 ^th April, 1959 between Arthur Grainger Edwards to his grandfather, Joseph Benjamin O'Garro aka Benjamin O'Garro, for a two-acre parcel of land in Hill Side, St. Paul, Antigua. He alleged that the parcel conveyed to Benjamin O'Garro was described as being bound by lands belonging to the Estate of Sarah Brown, the Claimant's grandmother, and Ethel Edwards. The Claimant averred that he also obtained a copy of an Indenture of Conveyance of land from Arthur Grainger Edwards to Ethel Edwards dated 10 ^th April, 1959 which mentioned the lands of Benjamin O'Garro.

5 The Claimant averred that the Land Adjudication Act2 sought to bring the registration of all lands in Antigua under the Cadastral Survey and the process required an Adjudication Officer to prepare an Adjudication Record determining the individual who possessed an interest in land. He averred that the Adjudication Record as it relates to Parcel 5 was completed and dated 28 ^th April, 1977 and the recording officer indicated that the land remained unclaimed and belonged to “relations of Arthur Grainger Edwards, probably Personal Representatives of Ivan Edwards”.

6 The Claimant alleged that on a further search at the National Archives, he obtained a copy of a Conveyance from Arthur Grainger Edwards to Walter Edwards, Rolston Edwards, Ivan Edwards, Thelma Edwards and Marjorie Abbot nee Edwards dated 20 ^th December, 1966 for parcels of land situated at Hillside in the Parish of St. Paul estimated at 12 acres more or less.

7 The Claimant alleged that Arthur Grainger Edwards' conveyance of 1966 could not have included the two-acre parcel that had been previously conveyed to Benjamin O'Garro, seven years prior in 1959 as Arthur Grainger Edwards no longer owned that portion of land. He averred that the two-acre parcel was erroneously and mistakenly included in the 3 ³/₄ acres particularly described in the Land Registry as Registration Section: Falmouth & Bethesda; Block No: 34 2482B; Parcel No: 5 and should not have been registered in the Estate of Ivan Edwards.

8 In light of the above, at paragraph 12 of his statement of claim, the Claimant prayed that the Court orders a rectification of the Land Registrar and that the two-acre parcel that was purchased and conveyed to Benjamin O'Garro be registered in his name.

The 2 ^nd Defendant's Defence

9 The 2 ^nd Defendant filed a defence to the Claimant's claim putting the Claimant to strict proof of several of the averments made in his claim. The 2 ^nd Defendant denied that the alleged two-acre parcel of land was erroneously and mistakenly included in the 3 ³/₄ acres comprising Parcel 5 and should not have been registered in the Estate of Ivan Edwards. He averred however that if there was an error, that issue would have been raised years ago and that no such allegation has ever been made until now, many years after Mr. Edwards' death.

10 The 2 ^nd Defendant further averred that the relief sought by the Claimant in paragraph 12 of the statement of claim is statute barred. He averred that section 17 of the Limitation Act 19973 bars action to recover any land after the expiry of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him, or if it first accrued to some person though whom he claims, to that person. He averred that, according to the Claimant's statement of claim, he is bringing this action in relation to a transfer/conveyance that took place in 1993, thirty years ago, and he is also challenging the legitimacy of a conveyance which took place in 1959, sixty-four years ago. Thus, the 2 ^nd Defendant contended, these actions cannot be brought against the 2 ^nd Defendant now.

11 The parties were issued case management directions on 21 ^st October, 2024 for the trial of the claim. On 5 ^th February, 2025 the 2 ^nd Defendant filed a notice of application for summary judgment. The 2 ^nd Defendant's notice of application stated that he was applying for an order that the Claimant's claim is statute barred and therefore dismissed and for prescribed costs. An affidavit was filed in support of the application.

The 2 ^nd Defendant's Summary Judgment Application

12 The 2 ^nd Defendant's summary judgment application was made on the following six grounds:-

• 1. The Claimant has no real prospect of successfully prosecuting his claim against the 2 ^nd Defendant.

• 2. The cause of action arose out of a conveyance which took place in 1966, some 58 years before the filing of the claim;

• 3. Section 17(1) of the Limitation Act 1997 states that no action shall be brought by a person to recover land after the expiration of 12 years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or if it first accrued to some other person through whom he claims, to that person.

• 4. Section 32 (1) of the Limitation Act 1997 states that subject to subsection 3 where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either — … (c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.

• 5. With reasonable diligence, the Claimant's predecessors, under whom the Claimant derives his authority for the present action, could have discovered the mistake since at least since 1975 when the Cadastral Survey was done and the Registered Land Act was brought into force. The fact that the Claimant did not in fact discover the alleged mistake until 2022 does not absolve him of the requirements of section 32 of the Limitation Act 1997.

• 6. The conveyance, transfer and land register were all publicly available documents, and the Claimant is statute barred from bringing an action decades after the 12 year limitation period has expired.

13 The 2 ^nd Defendant further stated in his notice of application for summary judgment that the issue that he proposes that the Court should deal with at the hearing of the application for summary judgment is whether or not the Claimant is statute barred from bringing the present action against the 2 ^nd Defendant.

14 The Claimant filed a notice of opposition to the 2 ^nd Defendant's summary judgment application opposing it on the following grounds:-

• 1. The Claimant's claim pursuant to section 140 of the Registered Land Act for rectification due to mistake is not statute barred and has a reasonable prospect of success.

• 2. The Claimant's claim is not statute barred pursuant to section 31(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1997, as the relief claimed is a direct consequence of a mistake and it could have only been discovered by the Claimant on or around 2021.

15 The Claimant did not file an affidavit in response to the 2 ^nd Defendant's application in accordance with CPR 11.12 and 15.5(2). Neither party filed their witness statements as directed by the Court on 21 ^st October, 2024; accordingly, the 2 ^nd Defendant's summary judgment application proceeded based on the evidence of the 2 ^nd Defendant and the applicable law.

The Law on Summary Judgment

16 In Myett's Enterprises Limited v Kimberley Cook Leigh et al, 4 Pereira CJ, citing the well-known judgment of Saint Lucia Motor and General Insurance v Peterson Modeste5 which has been submitted to the Court by both Parties, explained the approach of the Court to an application for summary judgment:-

“[14] The proper approach of the court to these applications is well-established. In determining whether the claimant or defendant has a real prospect of success, the judge or master must critically examine the pleadings...