Archibald v Blake

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Hylton, J.
• Judgment Date: 12 July 1993
• Neutral Citation: KN 1993 HC 18
• Docket Number: No. 29 of 1991
• Date: 12 July 1993

High Court

Hylton, J.

No. 29 of 1991

Archibald

and

Blake

Appearances:

Mr. Terence Byron for the plaintiff

Mr. David Rawlings for the defendant

Real property - Landlord and tenant — Implied covenant for quiet enjoyment — Breach — Arrears of rent — Defendant tenant stopped paying rent but kept keys — Plaintiff gave defendant notice to quit — Plaintiff nailed up door to apartment when defendant was absent — Physical interference by plaintiff was an implied breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment — Judgment for plaintiff for rent due — Judgment on counterclaim for breach of implied covenant for quiet enjoyment.

Hylton, J.

1 By a Writ filed on 2 ^nd February, 1991 and amended at trial the plaintiff sought to recover $3,900 for arrears of rent for period February to July, 1989 and $760 special damages in respect of damage to toilet and water heater.

THE BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE

2 The plaintiff a businesswoman of Shepherds Street, New Town rented the upper floor of a dwelling house to the defendant at a monthly rent of $650. The tenancy commenced on or about 9 ^th November, 1988 and the defendant who is a teacher (but — who his counsel said during the addresses was a student when he occupied the plaintiff's house) paid a total of three months rent – the final payment being $1,300 paid in December for the two month period ending on or about 8 ^th February, 1989. Both sides agree that after December, 1988 the defendant never paid any more rent and did not return the keys until he was contacted by Solicitors on behalf of the plaintiff. He the defendant was given notice to quit with effect from 30 ^th June, 1989 but the plaintiff did not receive keys until September, 1989 after defendant took them to plaintiff's Solicitors.

3 With regard to the claim for special damages the plaintiff asserted that having obtained the keys she entered the apartment and discovered:–

• (1) that the toilet external to the main bedroom could not flush and she was obliged to pay a total of $360 to fix same.

• (2) that the hot water pipe for the heater was broken and she was obliged to pay to fix same but she could not remember how much she had paid.

4 The plaintiff testified also that having not been paid for the period from 9 ^th February, 1989 onwards she spoke with the defendant who promised to see her — never kept his promise and so she briefed her Lawyers. She said further that defendant left premises on 18 ^th August, 1989 but she never got the keys until September, 1989.

5 The plaintiff denied that she nailed the only door to the apartment shut thereby imprisoning an invitee of the defendant on 18 ^th March, 1989. Indeed she claimed not to know of any “Invitee” of the defendant though she admitted seeing Denise Maynard entering the defendant's apartment. plaintiff denied also that in August, 1989 she removed the lock to the apartment but in this regard she said it was defendant's friends who spoke with her and she accompanied them to defendant's apartment whereupon they knocked and on getting no response tried to prize the door open when it was opened from the inside by the defendant. The defendant called a Mr. Heyliger to support his version of the facts as to the opening of the door. On a balance of probabilities I accept the plaintiff's version that it was friends of the defendant who in her presence commenced to open the door and remonstrated with the defendant when he opened same from inside that he had informed one of them — Mr. Heyliger that he had sent his property to his mother — and had come to stay with him, Heyliger when in fact he was still. occupying the house.

6 I accept, however that even though the plaintiff well knew that Denise Maynard, (as she then was) shared the house with the defendant and was therein she did so on a day in the month of March, 1989 nail up the only door to the apartment thereby effectively imprisoning her for a short-while until the defendant allegedly used some force to open the door thereby freeing Miss Maynard.

7 The defendant supported by his witness testified in relation to the claim for special damages that when he actually commenced occupation of the premises the toilet and water heater were already malfunctioning. On a balance of probabilities I accept the evidence of the defendant about these fixtures.

8 With regard to the defence and Counterclaim the plaintiff admitted that it was an implied term of the tenancy Agreement that the defendant should have quiet enjoyment of the demised...