Roberts v Roberts et Al
| Jurisdiction | Antigua and Barbuda |
| Judge | Thomas, J. |
| Judgment Date | 13 July 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | AG 2007 HC 33 |
| Docket Number | ANUHCV 0110 of 2006 |
| Court | High Court (Antigua) |
| Date | 13 July 2007 |
High Court
Thomas, J.
ANUHCV 0110 of 2006
Mr. Steadroy Benjamin for the claimant.
Dr. David Dorsett for the defendants.
Real property - Constructive trust — Whether claimant was entitled to a share in the family home — Common intention of the parties — Claimant contributed to the construction both financial and with labour — Claimant was an equitable tenant in common and entitled to use and enjoyment of the property.
Damages - Defendant used hammer to break lock on the door — Damages of $2,000 for trespass and $3,500 for special damages awarded.
On 13th April 2006, the claimant filed an amended fixed date claim form seeking the following:
-
(a) A declaration that the first and second defendants and each of them whether by themselves, or by their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever are not entitled to remove, eject or forcefully throw out the claimant and the claimant's infant daughter from the family home and premises situate at Jennings Village in the Parish of Saint Mary in Antigua and Barbuda.
-
(b) A declaration that the claimant is beneficially entitled to a share in the family home situate at Jennings Village in the Parish of Saint Mary in the State of Antigua and Barbuda.
-
(c) An injunction restraining the defendants and each of them whether by themselves or by their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from forcefully removing, ejecting, forcefully throwing out or attempting to remove, eject throw out the claimant and the claimants daughter from the family home and premises situate at Jennings Village and further from doing or suffering to be done anything on the property which shall in anyway disturb or inconvenience the claimant.
-
(d) Damages for trespass.
-
(e) That provision be made for the costs of this application.
In her statement of claim the claimant pleads that she is the lawful daughter of Joseph Roberts and the late Sarah Roberts all of Jennings Village. It is further pleaded by the claimant that she has seven other siblings and that the first and second defendants are two such siblings.
At paragraph 4 of the statement of claim the claimant says that all of her siblings lived at the family home with their parents until everyone except the claimant left the said family home and went to reside in their own homes and that the claimant remained in the home, where she has resided from birth to the present time, to take care of her parents.
It is the claimant's further plea that on or about 28th June 1982, during the course of the marriage between Sarah Roberts and the third defendant, the said third defendant obtained title in his sole name of land and premises referred to in the Land Registry as Registration Section: Jennings; Block 53–1487 D; Parcel 58 (“Parcel 58”). A further averment is that: “Despite the fact that the Land Certificate was in the name of the third defendant held the said [Parcel 58] in trust for himself and his wife Sarah Roberts.”
It is the claimant's contention that in or about the year 1990 following a discussion between family members, it was decided and agreed that the family residence should be demolished and rebuilt as a family home with monetary contributions to come from all family members.
The claimant avers that on completion of the home, the claimant, the third defendant and the claimant resided at the family home until the claimant's mother's death on 27th April 1992.
The claimant says that on 16th February, 2006 she received a letter from the third defendant asking her to vacate the family home by 28th February 2006, which letter was responded to by the claimant's attorney-at-law. Further that on the afternoon of 28th February 2006 the defendants arrived and demanded that the claimant vacate and upon the claimant's refusal the first defendant proceeded to kick down the claimant's bedroom door and with the second defendant unlawfully remove the claimants personal belongings and those of the claimant's daughter.
As a result of trespass to her personal belongings, the claimant contends that she suffered loss and damage. For this reason the amount of $4,289.00 is claimed as special damages. Also claimed is a declaration that the claimant is beneficially entitled to a share in the family house and premises situate at Jennings; damages for trespass and costs.
In their defence the defendants aver that the third defendant is the owner of Parcel 58 where the third defendant, his wife Sarah Roberts, and the children of the union lived.
With respect to the claimant, the defendants say that unhappy differences developed with the third defendant which resulted in the claimant being locked out the house by the said third defendant in or about 1989. It is further contended that the claimant lived with a relative and only returned to the third defendant's house in or about 1994 as a licensee or a tenant at will.
In terms of the ownership of Parcel 58, the defendants admit that it is owned by the third defendant but deny that the third defendant held the property in trust for himself and his late wife as there was no such agreement, arrangement or understanding at the time of the acquisition or at any other time. It is further contended that the house was rebuilt pursuant to discussions and an agreement between the second and third defendants with the financing provided by them from their own means.
In their counterclaim the defendants plead that on 30th March 2006, the third defendant granted a power of attorney to the second defendant with respect to Parcel 58. Further, that on 16th February 2006 the third defendant revoked the licence and/or the tenancy at will of the claimant to abide and remain at the property. Despite this situation, the defendants say that the claimant has refused to give up possession of the property.
The second defendant counterclaims:
- Possession of the property described as Registration Section: Jennings, Block 53 1487 D, Parcel 58 to the second defendant. 2. Rent and or mesne profits until possession is given up by the claimant to the second defendant. 3. Damages for continuing trespass. 4. Any further or other relief that the court deems just; 5. Costs.
In her reply the claimant joins issue with the defendants on many of the matters alleged in their defence, including the averment that the claimant was locked out of the family home. In this regard the following is pleaded at paragraphs 7 to 9 of the reply:
“7. Except for the period in 1994 when the claimant left Antigua to give birth to her daughter the U.S.A. the claimant never left the family home as alleged at paragraph 5 of the defendant's defence; the said claimant merely took some of her clothes to Agatha Peters' house so she could change to go out with her paramour and sleep over sometimes when the claimant went out at night with her paramour.
8. The claimant repeats the contents of paragraphs 3 to 7 of her REPLY and avers that she always resided in the family house, never resided with a relative and remained in the family home care for the third defendant and her mother Sarah Roberts now deceased.
9. As to paragraph 7 of the defence the claimant returned to Antigua from the U.S.A. with her infant daughter in November 1994 and resumed her residence in the family home. The claimant has resided there ever since as of right and not as a licensee or a tenant at will. There is no dispute over land.”
With respect to the money collected from family members, the claimant contends that they were placed in an account in the joint name of Sarah Roberts and the third defendant and that after the death of Sarah Roberts the third defendant removed her name and replaced it with that of ‘ELMEDA JONES’ his present wife.
The following are the issues for determination:
- Whether the claimant is entitled to a share of family home on parcel 58. 2. What is the status of the claimant's occupation of the family home. 3. Whether the defendants are liable in trespass. 4. Whether the second and third defendants are entitled to exclusive possession of the family home. 5. Whether the claimant is liable for continuing trespass. 6. Whether the second and third defendants are entitled to rent and or mense profits.
In her witness statement Joycelyn Roberts says that she is employed at the Antigua Labour Party Secretariat and also that she is one of eight lawful children of the third defendant and their mother, Sarah Roberts.
According to the witness Parcel 58 was purchased by the third defendant in 1948 and the said third defendant, her mother, her siblings and herself lived on the said property. The witness says further that the said property was purchased by means of a pooling of resources of her father, the third defendant, and her mother. This pooling went on for approximately four years.
At paragraph 10 to 11 of her witness statement Joycelyn Roberts speaks to a common intention regarding the property in these terms:
“10. In fact, that common intention of the property being bought for my mother and father for themselves and their family can be deduced from the fact that all of my siblings lived on that piece or parcel of land until each either migrated or got married and began his or her own family. I lived on the parcel of land from the date of my birth on 26th November, 1955 up to the present time except for such periods of time as I shall outline hereunder”.
11. At present the second defendant and myself occupy the said premises each with our respective child.”
At paragraphs 13 and 14 of her witness statement the claimant speaks of the agreement to rebuild the family home after the passage of hurricane Hugo.
At paragraphs 37 to 41 of her witness statement Joycelyn Roberts gives testimony as follows:
...To continue reading
Request your trial