A.G. v Pomeroy

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: St. Bernard, J.A. (Acting).,LEWIS, C.J.,GORDON, J.A.
• Judgment Date: 08 November 1969
• Neutral Citation: KN 1969 CA 3
• Docket Number: No. 2 of 1969
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Date: 08 November 1969

Court of Appeal

St. Bernard, J. (Ag.).

Gordon, J.A.,

Lewis, C.J.

No. 2 of 1969

A.G.

and

Pomeroy

Appearances:

E. Walwyn (Attorney General) with H.M. Squires for the appellant

Sir Geoffrey Boon, Q.C., with G.R. Boon for the respondent

Practice and procedure - Statement of claim

Facts: The applicant's passport was withdrawn by the Government under section 6(b) of the Immigration and Passport Act, Cap. 145. Whether the applicant had proved that she became entitled to British nationality.

Held: The statement of claim was deficient and should be struck out. It did not state the material facts, which go to establish that the applicant was a British subject. Leave to amend refused.

St. Bernard, J.A. (Acting).

1 On the 18 ^th May 1968, during the absence of the respondent from the State, the Governor acting under s. 6(b) of the Immigration and Passport Act, Cap. 145 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) made an exclusion order declaring the respondent an undesirable inhabitant. On the 16 ^th November 1968, the respondent issued a writ against the appellant as representing the Crown, asking the Court for a declaration that she belongs to the State of St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla under the provisions of s. 2 (2) of the Act, as the same was prior to its amendment by the Immigration and Passport (Amendment) Act, No. 20 of 1968, and also an injunction to restrain the appellant, officers and agents of the Government from interfering with the personal liberty of the respondent.

2 The respondent filed a statement of claim on the 4 ^th December 1968. The appellant filed his defence on the 21 ^st December 1968, and at paragraph 9 thereof pleaded as follows:– “The defendant pleads that the Statement of Claim asserts a right in the plaintiff without showing on what facts her claim is founded; and the Statement of Claim does not disclose a cause of action nor sufficient grounds for a declaration to be made by the Courts”.

3 The matter came up for hearing on the 13 ^th June 1969, and the point eras taken by the Attorney General that the statement of claim did not disclose sufficient facts and should be struck out. The learned trial judge ruled that it was in order and leave was granted to appeal to this Court.

4 In his grounds of appeal the appellant stated that even if the statement of claim disclosed a cause of action, lack of material facts made it embarrassing for the defendant to answer and that the whole statement of claim was so repugnant to the principles of pleading and in its entirety so void of material facts that leave to amend or to file particulars must be prejudicial to the defence.

5 Paragraphs 1, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the statement of claim are as follows:–

• “1. The plaintiff is a hotel proprietor ordinarily resident in Nevis.

• 3. The plaintiff was born a British Subject and is now a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and has been ordinarily resident in the island of Nevis part of the State of St. Christopher Nevis Anguilla continuously for upwards of seven (7) years and since the completion of the said period of residence has not been ordinarily resident in any other part of Her Majesty's Dominions or any territory under Her Majesty's protection continuously for seven (7) years or more.

• 6. The plaintiff at the time of the making of the said order was absent from the State and is still so absent and is fearful that if she returned she is likely to be detained and deported by force and the provisions of s. 12 of the St. Christopher Nevis Anguilla Constitution Order 1967 thereby contravened.

• 7. The plaintiff repeats the allegations made in paragraph 3 hereof and claims under the Immigration and Passport Act Cap. 145 s. 2 SS (2) (b) as the same was in operation at the time of the completion of the said period of residence referred to in the said paragraph that she acquired the status of belonging to the State of St. Christopher Nevis Anguilla and that her status is in no way affected by the Immigration and Passport Amendment Act 1968.

• 8. In the alternative the plaintiff says that she a is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who is domiciled in St. Christopher Nevis Anguilla and has been ordinarily resident in the island of Nevis for not less than fourteen (14) years”.

6 The Immigration and Passport (Amendment) Act 1968 amended the definition of belonging to the State by bringing it into conformity with s. 113 (10) (a) of the Constitution. That paragraph, in so far as it is pertinent to this appeal, is as follows:

“113 …. …. …. …. …. ….

• (10) (a) For the purposes of this Constitution, a person shall be regarded as belonging to Saint Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla if that person is –

  • (i) a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies born in Saint Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla;

  • (iv) a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who is domiciled in Saint Christopher, Nevis and...