Andre v Williams

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Glasgow, J.
• Judgment Date: 02 June 1972
• Neutral Citation: KN 1972 HC 10
• Docket Number: No. 58 of 1971
• Date: 02 June 1972

High Court

Glasgow, J.

No. 58 of 1971

Andre

and

Williams

D. Byron for plaintiff.

E. Walwyn for defendants.

Contract - Sale of land — Claim for specific performance — Title by Registration Act, (Cap. 279) section 5.

Facts: The plaintiff/purchaser sought specific performance of a contract for the sale of a parcel of land alleged to have been made with the defendant as vendor, and recorded in the Registry of Deeds. The sale agreement satisfied all the requirements of section 4 of the Conveyancing and Law Property Ordinance, cap. 271. However the defendant subsequently obtained a crown grant in his favour in respect of the same land and by virtue of the Title by Registration Act, (Cap. 279) s. 5 he was unable to pass the title to the plaintiff. The question was whether specific performance could be ordered in those circumstances.

Held: That specific performance could not be granted in those circumstances — Judgment given in favour of the plaintiff for damages in the sum of $1,000.00 instead.

Glasgow, J.

1 The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is for specific performance of a contract dated the 9th March, 1970 for the sale of a parcel of land situate at Hamilton Estate in Nevis, alleged to have been made between the defendant as vendor and the plaintiff purchaser, and recorded in the Registry of Deeds for the Nevis Circuit in Liber C.R. Volume 30, folios 339 to 342.

2 In his Statement of Defence the defendant denied that the alleged contract was or is his deed. In the alternative the defendant stated that the plaintiff induced him to sign a written document by the use of undue influence by the plaintiff upon the defendant. The defendant stated that he agreed orally with the plaintiff to give the plaintiff not acre of Hamilton Estate land in exchange for half an acre of the plaintiff's land at Morning Star, and that on the basis of the said oral agreement he permitted the plaintiff to build a cottage on a portion of his said Hamilton Estate land on the acre to be exchanged between the parties.

3 The material facts, as I find them, are as follows: In or about 1935 the defendant, acquired 2 acres 3 roods and 19.9 perches or thereabouts of the Hamilton Estate lands situate in the parish of St. Paul in the Island of Nevis and numbered 35 on the plan made by J.H. Stevens on the 6th July, 1935. I will hereinafter refer to the said land as lot No. 35. The defendant acquired Lot No. 35 from the Government by purchase under a scheme whereby Government lands were sold to settlers who were allowed to pay the purchase price of the same by small yearly instalments. In or about 1969 after the defendant had paid all the instalments due on Lot No. 35, he decided to offer it for sale. The defendant went to Mr. John Howell, a merchant and real estate agent in Nevis. The defendant told Mr. Howell that he had a piece of land at Hamilton for sale and that if Mr. Howell heard of anyone who needed land he should let him know. The defendant took Mr. Howell to Lot. No. 35 one Sunday afternoon. In the meantime, one Bissette had spoken to the plaintiff in October 1969. As a result of that conversation Bissette took the plaintiff to see the defendant outside the defendant's home at Church Ground, in the Parish of St. John, Nevis. Bissette told the defendant in the plaintiff's presence that he had brought to him someone who was interested in buying or making transactions for purchasing the bit of land at Hamilton, which he was offering for sale. The defendant said that a number of persons had already approached him concerning the same land but that he would like the plaintiff to have the land. The defendant also told the plaintiff that Mr. John E. Howell was his agent and that the plaintiff was to go to Mr. Howell and tell him that he (the defendant) had, agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff. The matter of the defendant's title to Lot No. 35 was raised by the plaintiff. The defendant told the plaintiff that she would go to Mr. Walwyn's office and see Miss Claxton and ask her to either tell or show the plaintiff how far she had reached with the processing of the title. Miss Claxton is and was at all material times a clerk at the Nevis office of Admas Walwyn and Brookes. On the day following this conversation between the plaintiff and the defendant the plaintiff went to Mr. John Howell and spoke with him. The plaintiff next went to the Nevis office of Adams Walwyn and Brookes and spare to Miss Claxton. At that time Mr. Walwyn was the Attorney General of the State. Miss Claxton showed the plaintiff the defendant's Crown Grant in respect of Lot No. 35.

4 On the following Saturday the defendant went to the plaintiff's home and told the plaintiff that he had gone to see Mr. Howell to confirm his agreement to sell the land. The defendant also told the plaintiff that he had made up his mind definitely to sell the land to her and that he was so determined that he was ready for her to begin working the land immediately. The defendant told the plaintiff that he was then working for Dr. Haskell but that he was going to give up the job and come to work for the plaintiff on Lot No. 35. The plaintiff agreed to buy Lot No. 35. She was reluctant to employ the defendant, but in the end she agreed to do so. About one week later the defendant was working on Lot No. 35 cleaning the land, and was being paid for his work by the plaintiff at the rate of $20.00 per week. The defendant obtained the services of another man — one Richard- to assist in cleaning Lot No. 35. The plaintiff paid Richards $15.00 a week for his services. The defendant then suggested that the plaintiff should have Lot No. 35 bulldozed. The plaintiff made the necessary arrangements and the whole of Lot No. 35 was bulldozed by an Agricultural Department bulldozer at a cost to the plaintiff of $525.00. While the bulldozing was in progress the defendant asked the plaintiff to contact Mr. John Howell so that they could come to same agreement concerning the price of the land. As a result, the plaintiff took Mr. Howell to Lot No. 35 in her Mini Moke. They met the defendant on Lot No. 35. A discussion took place between Mr. Howell, the defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff offered the defendant $1500.00 per acre for Lot No. 35. The defendant accepted the offer and Mr. Howell also said that he agreed. After that the defendant continued to work on Lot No. 35.

5 In March 1970 the plaintiff's throat was giving her trouble. She told the defendant that the resident doctor had directed her to a specialist in Barbados and that she had to leave for Barbados almost immediately. The defendant told the plaintiff that he thought she had peen a bit careless spending so much money on the land when she had nothing to show. The defendant advised the plaintiff to have an agreement prepared before she left for Barbados. The plaintiff agreed and told the defendant that Mr. Cecil Byron is her lawyer. The defendant went to Mr. Cecil Byron's office and told Mr. Byron that he agreed with the plaintiff to sell Lot No, 35 to her, and that he was anxious for a paper to be fixed which would show that he was selling the land to her. The defendant confirmed that the selling price of Lot No. 35 was $1500.00 per acre. He stated that he did not yet have title to the land but that title was being prepared by his solicitors Adams Walwyn and Brookes The defendant told Mr. Byron that if there should be any failure about title he would even be prepared to will the land to the plaintiff. Mr. Byron told the defendant that he did not think a will was the proper way to deal with the matter. Mr. Byron suggested the drawing up of an agreement setting out the intention of the parties. The defendant told Mr. Byron to proceed with the agreement. The defendant also told Mr. Byron that this should be done quickly as the plaintiff was due to leave for Barbados shortly. The defendant told Mr. Byron that the plaintiff had agreed to pay $1000.00 as a deposit on the purchase price, and to pay the balance when he was in possession of his certificate of title and was able to transfer a good title to the plaintiff. The defendant said that he was waiting on his solicitors for the registration of his title. He mentioned that there was some problem about the loss of Government's title to Hamilton Estate, and that he would have to wait. The defendant then left Mr. Byron's office. Mr. Byron proceeded to draw a contract for the sale and purchase of Lot No. 35. In this connection he made preliminary searches at the Land Registry. The defendant again called at Mr. Byron's office within a few days and said that the plaintiff would be leaving for Barbados on the following day, and:' that he had come to sign the agreement if it was ready. Mr. Byron told the defendant that the agreement was ready for signing. Mr. Byron called Miss Higgins, one of his clerks, and in her presence he read to the defendant the agreement he had prepared. The defendant agreed that he agreement was correct and he signed it by writing...