Elsee Juliet (born William) the widow of the late Alfred Juliet who sues as (1) the sole Administratrix of the succession of the late Alfred Juliet and (2) one of the lawful heirs of the said Alfred Juliet deceased Plaintiff v 1. Julietta Louis 2. Agatha Sonson 3. John Philgence 4. Wayne Edward Defendants [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
| Judge | d'Auvergne J |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 2001 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2001] ECSC J0420-3 |
| Date | 20 April 2001 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis) |
| Docket Number | Suit No: 471 of 1997 |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(CIVIL)
Suit No: 471 of 1997
Mr. Dexter Theodore for Plaintiff
Mr. Hilford Deterville and Miss Jan Drysdale for second Defendant
Mr. Peter Foster for third Defendant
First and fourth Defendants un-represented
In order to appreciate the claims, the arguments and the decision in this case it is essential that the background and history of the case be given.
The portion of land which is the subject matter of dispute in this case is situated at Marisule in the quarter of Gros-Islet in the state of St. Lucia and forms part of a larger parcel of land which was formerly registered as Parcel 1052 B 334 in the registration quarter of Gros-Islet.
During the years 1984 to 1987 certain land reform measures were introduced into St. Lucia whereby the ownership of land came to be determined only by registration; land would be adjudicated upon by an adjudication officer and would later be registered. In 1984 two acts were passed namely, the Land Adjudication Act and the Land Registration Act.
Consequent upon the passing of these two acts and their later amendments all St. Lucians, both home and abroad, registered all lands to which they had title, those which they occupied or had in their possession for many years. The result was that many people were claiming the same piece of land.
But the law in its wisdom devised sets of procedure for the determination of such disputes between claimants. A dissatisfied claimant would firstly seek redress from the Land Adjudication officer. If he was still dissatisfied he may then appeal to the Land Adjudication Tribunal and if still dissatisfied, he may within two (2) months of the date of the certificate of the Land Tribunal, appeal to the Court of Appeal, who on any such appeal may make such order, or substitute for the decision of the Land Adjudication Tribunal, such decision as it may consider just.
The facts in this case discloses that Alfred Juliet, a St. Lucian national, and deceased husband of the Plaintiff emigrated to the United States of America and after many years became a citizen of that Country, and there, together with Robert Juliet gave permission in notarised form, dated 8 th July 1957 to Mrs. Francis Sebastien and Mrs. John B. Louis to use lands owned by Robert E. Juliet.
Eleven years later, that is, on 10 th July 1968 in another notarised document (which was later deposited at the registry in St. Lucia on the 6 th January 1971.) Alfred Juliet gave all his property moveable and immovable to the said Francis Sebastien and Mrs. John B. Louis
About fifteen years later, during the demarcation of the land process in St. Lucia one Harris Stephen representing Thomas Juliet, the son of Alfred Juliet claimed the Marisule piece of land. Mrs. Francis Sebastien and Mrs. John B. Louis were also Claimants.
On the 1 st of April 1986 the land was awarded to Mrs. Francis Sebastien and Mrs. John B. Louis with provisional title dating from 6 th January 1971 by the Adjudication officer in Dispute Number 6A 8D).
The Plaintiff never appealed but by Writ of Summons dated and filed on the 6 th June 1997, the Plaintiff, as widow of the late Alfred Juliet sued as Sole Administratrix of his succession and secondly as one of his lawful heirs brought the present action in which she claims:
- A declaration that the New York Instrument did not convey or transfer any right title or interest in the Marisule parcel either to (1) Francis Sebastien or (2) Anita Baptiste. 2. A Declaration that neither (1) Julietta Louis, the first Defendant nor (2) Agatha Sonson has or had any right title or interest in or over the Marisule parcel. 3. A declaration that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Marisule parcel as the sole administratrix of the succession of the late Alfred Juliet. 4. Mense Profits. 5. Possession of the Marisule parcel. 6. Further or other relief. 7. Cost.
On the 24 th of June 1997 an appearance was entered on behalf of the second named Defendant and on the 21 st of July 1997 for the third named Defendant.
The second named Defendant filed her defence on the 30 th July 1997 wherein she stated that prior to the issuing of the Writ mentioned above, she was the owner with absolute title of the land in question and dealt with it as owner for she purchased the land from Mrs. Francis Sebastien who at the date of purchase was entered on the Land Register as the sole proprietor of the land.
A perusal of the Court's file will show that many applications were filed and determined and that on the 5 th of October 2000 a Summons for Trial of Preliminary Issue on the part of the second Defendant was filed. The issues to be determined are as follows:
- The determination of the Adjudication Officer in dispute Number 6A 8D is final and is res judicata and not subject to review or appeal by way of the proceedings herein or at all. 2. This Court has no jurisdiction to grant to the Plaintiff the relief sought herein or any part thereof and that the Statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action. 3. That for the following reasons the Plaintiffs are estopped by the acquiescence from impugning the second named Defendant's title:' (a) By their acquiescence (silence, inaction, interference, non objection or other passive conduct) for eleven years with respect to Adjudicator's decision dated 1st April 1986 the Plaintiff represented that as Administratrix of the Estate and Succession of the late Alfred Juliet or as heir of this Estate that she had no legal rights or had abandoned her legal right (if any) to the Marisule Parcel. (b) This representation created or encourage the second named Defendant to believe that Morgiana Sebastien also called Francis Sebastien was legally entitled to a portion of the Marisule Land more particularly described in Land Register Number 1052 B 520 and such capable of disposing of the same free and clear of al encumbrances. © On the faith of or in reliance on that belief the second named Defendant acted to her detriment by expending money in purchasing Parcel 1052 B 520 and subsequently selling portions there from. (d) The Plaintiff's contestation of the second named Defendant's title to her property at this late stage would defeat or disappoint the second named Defendant's belief created or encouraged by the Plaintiff's acquiescence. 4. That it is an abuse of the process of the Court to institute proceedings as herein, challenging the title of a person who has been declared as the proprietor of a parcel of land by the Adjudicator under the Land Adjudication Act and by the Registrar of Lands under the Land Registration Act, relying on facts and/or documents which predated the adjudicator's decision, unless such a challenge is made on the basis of overriding interests as provided for in Section 28 of the Land Registration Act and/or fraud or mistake as provided for in Section 98 of the land Registration Act.
Arguments
At the trial Learned Counsel for the second named defendant sought to include another issue for determination "that the Plaintiff had no Locus Standi". He argued that Plaintiff would not be taken by surprise since it was pleaded in paragraph two (2) of the defence. He said that the Plaintiff had no Locus Standi for her seisen had ended, that Letters of Administration had been granted to the Plaintiff on the 4 th of November 1975 and the Writ was filed on the 30 th of July 1997. He quoted Article 599(1) of the Civil Code which clearly states that " a personal representative shall administer the succession……………………. and shall perform all his obligations with the least possible delay; and shall thereafter, not later than one year from the date of the probate…………………… distribute amongst the heirs………… the property of the succession."
He also noted Article 599(3) which empowers the Court or Judge to extend the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial