Maurice Joseph Claimant v Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda Defendant [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | Antigua and Barbuda |
| Judge | Remy, J |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 2011 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2011] ECSC J0504-1 |
| Court | High Court (Antigua) |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. ANUHCV 2009/0547 |
| Date | 04 May 2011 |
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CLAIM NO. ANUHCV 2009/0547
The Claimant in this case alleges that he is a contractual licensee of the Government of Antigua and Barbuda (the Government) by virtue of an oral agreement between himself and the said Government to occupy a parcel of land known as Farm #17 comprising 41 acres and situate at North Sound (the land). He further alleges that sometime in February of 2009, certain agents of the Government without notice to him and without his. permission, entered onto the land and caused works to be done which resulted in damage to his perimeter fence as well as the loss of some of his cattle arisingfrom the gate being left open. The Government denies the existence of any lease or tenancy agreement with the Claimant and contends that the Claimant's brother Mr. Stephen Joseph is the lawful tenant of the land. The Government alleges that it entered the land and executed the works with Mr. Stephen Joseph's permission.
By a Claim Form with Statement of Claim filed on the 21st September 2009, and an Amended Statement of Claim (also referred to as the Statement of Claim) filed on the September 14th 2010 the Claimant pleaded that he is a livestock farmer and a contractual licensee occupying the land.
The Claimant in his Statement of Claim alleges that in 1983 he entered into an oral agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture, Lands and Fisheries (the Ministry) to occupy and use the land for animal husbandry under a Government European Development Funded programme (the EDF programme). The Claimant goes on to plead that he has paid the Government the sum of $1300.00 every three months for his occupation of the land.
The Statement of Claim further alleges that the terms of the agreement expressly protected the Claimant against the arbitrary termination of his tenure by the Defendant. The Claimant contends that implied into the agreement were the Defendant's obligation to secure his relocation to a suitable alternative location and to pay him adequate compensation for improvements made to the land in the event of a termination of the agreement at the Defendant's behest.
The Statement of Claim further alleges that the Defendant breached the agreement when the Defendant, without issuing him with prior notice entered the land sometime in February of 2009with a bulldozer. The Statement of Claim alleges that the Defendant's entry onto the land resulted in damage to the steel gate, perimeter fence as well as damage to theClaimant's pigs enclosure. The Claimant avers that the entry also caused 25 of his cattle to wander off the land.
The Claimant further pleaded that, acting in reliance on the "representations, acquiescence and encouragement" of the Government, he has to his detriment expended significant sums of money to make the land suitable for animal husbandry. He further pleaded that the Defendant's conduct was "arbitrary, highhanded and oppressive".
The Claimant claims the following reliefs against the Defendant:-
-
(1) Damages for breach of Contract.
-
(2) A Declaration that the Claimant is the lawful contractual licensee of all that parcel of land measuring approximately 41 acres identified as Farm #17 in the Records of the Ministry of Agriculture, Lands and Fisheries.
-
(3) A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to remain in lawful occupation of the said property in the absence of a proper termination notice fully determining the contract of occupation.
-
(4) Compensation for wrongful interference with property.
-
(5) Special Damages in the amount of $489,194.00.
-
(6) Damages including Exemplary damages.
-
(7) Interest pursuant to section 27 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court Act, Cap 143 of the Laws of Antigua and Barbuda.
-
(8) Costs.
-
(9) Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems fit.
By a Defence filed on the 26th October 2009, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is the contractual licensee of the Government and contends that Mr. Stephen Joseph is in fact a year to year tenant of the land and pays an annual rental premium of $30.00 per acre. The Defendant denies that it entered into any agreement whether oral or otherwise with the Claimant for the occupation and use of the land. The Defendant alleges that the Government successfully negotiated with the Mr. Stephen Joseph to secure the land for use as a Public Cemetery. The Defendant contends that following the negotiations between the parties, Mr. Stephen Joseph granted the Government permission to enter the land to commence the requisite works.
The Defendant further denies that the fence was damaged as alleged by the Claimant and contends that during the period within which works were executed on the land, the gates were inadvertently left open by the Government's employees that resulted in a few of the Claimant's cattle wandering from the land and onto the main road. The Defendant asserts that the cattle were retrieved and returned within the perimeter fence, after which the Government's employees locked the gates.
In his Reply to the Defence filed on the 30th December 2009, the Claimant admits that his brother occupied the land, but asserts that his brother's occupation ended prior to his own occupation of the land in or around 1989. The Claimant further asserts that the land was provided to him by the Government in or around 1989 to be used specifically as a farm under an EDF initiative for which he has paid approximately E.C. $1,300 (E.C. $30 per acre) every three months.
The Claimant in his Reply pleaded that his brother's interest in the land "had long been relinquished" but that sometime in 1997 upon their father's death the Claimant and his brother verbally agreed that he (the Claimant) would take care of and keep their deceased father's cattle. The Claimant further asserts that he and his brother agreed that in exchange for caring for the cattle his brother would pay the rental premiums for the land to the Government. The Claimant further contends that he believes that hisbrother began making these payments in or around 1997 and has continued to make payments to the Government pursuant to their verbal agreement.
The Claimant in his Reply alleges that he was made aware that the land would be used as a public cemetery sometime in or around July 21st 2004, when certain persons met him at the farm and advised him that they were present to conduct "initial inspections." The Claimant contends that thereafter, he received no formal notification of the intended acquisition. The Claimant further alleges that if any negotiations took place between the Defendant and his brother, that those negotiations were "ill conceived" as his brother had no authority "implied or otherwise" to enter into negotiations with the Defendant with respect to the farm. The Claimant contends that he is entitled to compensation from the Defendant for "wrongful interference" with his property.
The Claimant's case was presented through the evidence of the Claimant and his three witnesses, namely, Louise Jacobs, Liston Joseph and Hilroy Humphreys.
In his Witness Statement, the Claimant stated that in or about 1989 there was an oral agreement between himself and Hilroy Humpreys who was then the Minister of Agriculture, and who acted as the agent of the Government. He testified that Hilroy Humphreys gave him permission to occupy a vacant piece of land in North Sound. This, he stated, was as a result of the Government's EDF programme, wherein the Government provided farmers with land for use in cattle farming.
According to the Claimant, the land, which comprised 40 acres, was deserted, abandoned and overgrown with cassi bush trees. He explained that he prepared the land for close to two years to get it ready for animal husbandry. The Claimant stated thathe employed his brother Liston Joseph and some other persons to clear and prepare the land. He added that sometime in January of 2009, acting on a message from a neighbour, he went to his farm where he noticed that the gate was "broken down", "deformed", "badly damaged and could not close on its own." He observed that 25 of his cattle were missing and that a stationary bulldozer was at the entrance of the farm, although no driver was present. The Claimant added that he further observed that the front perimeter fence was also damaged. He stated that the next day, on arrival at his farm he had a conversation with a man "who appeared to be the driver of the bulldozer and who told him that they were employed by Public Works."
The Claimant stated that his brother had abandoned the farm "since the late 1970's or early 1880's" and that he thereafter went into his Supermarket business sometime in the 1990's. He stated that, sometime in 1997, following the death of their father, his brother called him and informed him that "people were taking up his father's animals." The Claimant added that at his brother's request, he agreed to look after the animals, in exchange for which his brother agreed to take care of the rent for the farm. The Claimant stated that he never received any receipts from his brother but that he had trusted him since they were brothers. The Claimant went on to explain that he however, never told the Ministry of this agreement with his brother as "he didn't think that it concerned them", and that he never communicated to the Ministry that he was relinquishing his occupation of the land.
The Claimant stated that on July 21st 2004 he was advised by the Chief Health Inspector and two other persons that they were present to conduct initial inspections at the farm, "since the Government had earmarked the land to be used as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial