Tonge v Attorney General and George (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | Antigua and Barbuda |
| Judge | Michel, J. |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | AG 2011 HC 23 |
| Court | High Court (Antigua) |
| Date | 10 June 2011 |
| Docket Number | ANUHCV No. 167 of 2011 |
High Court
Michel, J.
ANUHCV No. 167 of 2011
Ms. E. Deniscia Thomas for the claimant
Ms. Carla Brookes-Harris for the defendants
Real Property - Ownership — Whether Defendants protected by Section 28 (g) Revised Land Act, Cap. 374 — Proprietory Estoppel.
On 14th March 2011 the claimant, Anton Tonga, filed a fixed date claim against the defendants, the Attorney General and Norman Parillon George, for:–
- A declaration that the right of the claimant to personal liberty as guaranteed under section 5 of the Antigua and Barbuda Constitution Order 1981 has been breached. 2. Damages for loss of the claimant's right to personal liberty as guaranteed under section 5 of the Antigua and Barbuda Constitution Order 1981. 3. Further and/or alternatively, damages for false imprisonment. 6. Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court deems just. 7. Costs.
By Amended Defence filed on 6th April 2009 (amending a previously-filed defence) the defendants disputed the claimants claim and asserted their reliance on a proprietary estoppel and an overriding interest.
After various interlocutory applications and orders and an unsuccessful attempt at mediation, the case came to trial on 14th December 2010.
At the trial, the claimant gave evidence on his own behalf and called two witnesses, Messrs Wigley George and Melville Greene, while the second named defendant was the only witness for the defence.
In his witness statement the claimant stated that he was the owner and entitled to possession of the parcel of land in dispute between the parties, having purchased it from the Antigua Trades and Labour Union (ATLU) in or about 2006. He stated that there are two chattel houses on the parcel of land, one owned by him and the other owned by the defendants. He stated that his parents were tenants of the ATLU in respect of the portion of the land where their chattel house was located and paid the annual sum of $120 to the ALTU by way of rental for the land. He stated that his father died in 1988 and his mother died in 2004 and he continued to rent from the ATLU. He stated that in 2005 and/or 2006 he approached the ATLU with a view to purchasing the parcel of land from the union and was advised by the President of the ATLU, Mr. Wigley George, that since the defendants were on the land living in their mother's chattel house, it may be best to discuss the matter with the defendants whose mother was a tenant of the ATLU prior to her death. He stated that he was subsequently approached by the second named defendant who advised him that he (the second named defendant) wanted to purchase the parcel of land, whereupon he told the second named defendant that since they both had houses on the parcel of land they could purchase it jointly. He stated that the second named defendant told him that he would get back to him, but he never did. He stated that months later he enquired of the ATLU as to whether the land was still available for sale and he was advised by Mr. George that the second named defendant had made no further attempts to finalize the purchase and that he (the claimant) could purchase the land if he was still willing to do so. He stated that he agreed to purchase the parcel of land at a price of $17,000, which amount was paid to the ALTU on or about 11th May 2006 and on or about 31st May 2006 he received title to the land. He stated that he then informed the defendants of his purchase of the parcel of land and requested that they pay him rent of $400 per year for their use of the land, which they did not agree to and so he caused a letter dated 1st Math 2007 from Attorney John Fuller to be written to them giving them notice to quit and deliver up possession of his land. He stated that a further letter dated 20th August 2008 from Attorney Sherrie Ann Bradshaw was written and delivered to the defendants giving them notice of revocation of licence and requiring them to deliver up vacant possession of the land by 21st September 2008. The claimant stated that to date the defendants have failed and/or refused to vacate his land and remain in wrongful occupation of the land by reason whereof he has been deprived of the use of the land and has suffered loss and damage.
In his witness statement, Mr. Wigley George stated that he was the President of the ATLU for 14 years and was tasked, inter alia, with the sole responsibility of executing all documents for the union. He stated that the mothers of the claimant and of the defendants (the defendants being siblings of each other) were tenants of the ATLU for a number of years. He stated that sometime around 2005 and/or 2006 the claimant and the second named defendant both approached the ATLU with a view to purchasing the parcel of land on which both of their houses stood. He stated that after discussions with the claimant and the second named defendant it was decided to sell the parcel of land to the second named defendant, but then months went by without the second named defendant attempting to finalize the purchase of the land and he was instead insisting on the ATLU dealing with the claimant and the tenant on the land. He stated that negotiations with the second named defendant towards the purchase of the land broke down and the ATLU sold the parcel of land to the claimant. He stated that the ATLU had a tenancy agreement with the now-deceased mother of the defendants for the rental of a portion of land to her, but that there was no tenancy agreement with the defendants or any tenancy agreement with an option to purchase the parcel of land.
In his witness statement, Mr. Melville George stated that he is an executive member and trustee of the ATLU and has held these positions for over 15 years and that he was responsible for dealing with lands. His evidence, as per his witness statement was substantially the same as that of Mr. Wigley George.
In his witness statement, the second named defendant stated that he is the brother of the first named defendant and that they are both children of Ms. Rachel Browne, who died in 2002. He stated that the land now in dispute is the site of his family home where he was born. He stated that his mother made an attempt to purchase the property from the ATLU many years ago, probably as far back as the 1960s, but she was hindered in her acquisition of the property. He stated that over the years he went to the office of the ATLU with his mother to pay the rent and to negotiate for the purchase of the property and that eventually there was a board meeting around 1997 or 1998 where the ATLU confirmed its decision to sell the property to his family. He stated that the claimant got wind of the fact that the defendants were trying to purchase the property and he then approached the second named defendant and proposed that the property be purchased jointly. He stated that he told the claimant that he didn't think it would be possible because the property was too small to be subdivided. He stated that after that he (the second named defendant) came to an agreement with the ATLU with respect to the purchase price and met at the office of his lawyer. He stated that he signed a transfer document at his lawyers office, as did Mr. Green, but Mr. George did not sign because he (the second named defendant) questioned Mr. George about the...
To continue reading
Request your trial