Brookes v Richardson

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: Matthew J. A.
• Judgment Date: 18 April 1997
• Neutral Citation: KN 1997 CA 2
• Docket Number: No. 2 of 1995
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Date: 18 April 1997

Court of Appeal

Matthew, J.z., Satrohan, J., Redhead, J.

No. 2 of 1995

Brookes

and

Richardson

Mr. Terrence Bryon for the appellant

Mr. Lindsay Grant and Miss Patricia Haynes for the respondent

Real property - Appellant had filed a request for the issue of first certificate of title in respect of a parcel of land — trial judge had granted the land to the respondent and refused the applicant's application — A caveat to the respondent's title which alleged that the applicant had continuously occupied the said lane for a considerable period of time was found — Court found that the applicant's claim ought to have been fully investigated — Court set aside the issue of first certificate to the respondent and remitted the application to the High Court for rehearing.

1 Matthew J. A. (Ag.)

2 On February 2, 1994 the Respondent filed a request for the issue of a first certificate of title in respect of a plot of land in Brown Pasture containing 2 acres I rod 31 poles. On February 15, 1994 the Appellant entered a caveat against the issue of the certificate of title. The caveat was based on the fact that 0.5 acre of the said land was purchased by the Appellant from one Beatrice Dasent in 1972 and that since that date the Appellant had her residence on the portion of land and had cultivated the same and taken the rents, fruits and profits as undisputed owner.

3 On August 12, 1994 the Appellant filed a request for the issue of a first certificate of title in respect of the said 0.5 acre of land. In that request she relied on the 1972 purchase from Beatrice Dasent. Despite that deed the Appellant filed two affidavits by Ellsworth Morton and herself to the effect that before her purchase in 1972 they knew Beatrice Dasent and her late husband to have resided on the land since the late 1930‘s or early 1940‘s and had taken the rents, fruits and profits of the same as undisputed owners. The Appellant seems then to have been relying, not only on the 1972 deed, but also on long possession by Beatrice Dasent and herself.

4 On September 27, 1994 the Respondent entered a caveat against the issue of a first certificate of title to the Appellant.

5 Hylton J dealt with both applications and caveats together and in a rather terse judgment given on July 31, 1995 stated as follows:

“I have checked the authorities referred to by Counsel for Hope Bradley Richardson that is:

• (1) Pollard v Dick OECS Vol. 2 page 239; and

• (2) Phillips v. Bisnott 8 WIR 299

and hold therefore that the Title of Hope Bradley

Richardson………. is indefeasible”.

6 The learned Judge then granted the issue of the first certificate of title to the Respondent and refused the Appellant's application.

7 Learned Counsel for the Appellant enumerated several grounds of appeal in his notice filed on September 11, 1995 and in the relief sought he asked this Court to set aside the orders issuing a first certificate of title to the Respondent and denying a first certificate of title to the Appellant and remitting the applications to the High Court for rehearing.

8 In my view the principle of law stated in Pollard v. Dick is that the owner of land ( Pollard, the applicant)...