Herbert v Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: Glasgow, J.
• Judgment Date: 21 October 1974
• Neutral Citation: KN 1974 HC 3
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Date: 21 October 1974
• Docket Number: No. 61 of 1974

High Court

Glasgow, J.

No. 61 of 1974

Herbert

and

Attorney General

Appearances:

D. Byron with D. Mitchell for plaintiff

The Attorney General ( L.L. Moore) and A. J. Redhead, Crown Counsel for defendant

Injunction - Whether available against the Crown

Facts: Whether an injunction could be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the servants of the Minister from entering upon the plaintiff's lands.

Held: That section 16(a) of the Crown Proceedings Act, Cap. 22 forbids the granting of an injunction against the Crown.

Glasgow, J.

1 The Plaintiff's claim is for

• “1. A Declaration that the Direction No. 30 of 1973 Statutory Rules and Orders made by the Minister of Industry entitled The Cultivation of Arable Land (West Farm) Direction 1973 is unconstitutional and void.

• 2. A Declaration that the Minister of Agriculture his servants or agents and in particular those persons calling themselves “The Sugar Industry Rescue Operation” are not entitled to enter upon the lands of the Plaintiff situated at West Farm in the Island of Saint Christopher and State of Saint Christopher Nevis and Anguilla.

• 3. An Injunction to restrain the said persons calling themselves “The Sugar Industry Rescue Operation” or their servants from entering upon the said lands.

• 4. An Order for the Defendants to pay the costs of this Suit.”

2 The Defendant entered an appearance to the writ on the same day it was served on him, viz. 18 ^th October 1974. Later on the same day, the Defendant stated that he did not object to the Plaintiff's application for an order under Order 18 r. 21 of the Rules of the Supreme Court

3 (Revision) 1974 that the action be tried without pleadings. The Court made the required order, and with the consent of the parties, fixed the date of hearing for Saturday, the 19 ^th October 1974.

4 The facts which gave rise to the Plaintiff's claim are as follows: The Plaintiff a solicitor of this State, resides at Old Road, St. Kitts. He is the registered proprietor of a section of lead at West Farm St. Kitts and holds a certificate of title in respect of the said land under the Title by Registration Act. The Plaintiff purchased the said land in May 1973. Later in the same month or in June, 1973 the Plaintiff began making arrangements for a small dairy farm on the eastern side of the said land. He accordingly fenced off an area of some 10 acres on the said eastern aide. He employed one Nelson Byron to assist him with the fencing and the animals. He then put some cattle on the said land. Some time later somebody told the Plaintiff that he heard something over the radio relating to sugar cane. As a result, the Plaintiff arranged and had a conference with the Honourable St. John Payne, Minister of Agriculture and Labour, and Mr. William Dore, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture and Chief Executive Officer of the Sugar Industry Rescue Operation (SIRO). The plaintiff told the Minister of Agriculture that he understood that consideration was being given to putting the West Farm area back into sugar cane. Ha explained to the Minister that the lands he had purchased had never been any part of the SIRO Agreement that it consisted of two sections at the moment, that the area to the eastern part of the land contained his cattle and that he was anxious for the assistance of the Ministry in his scheme. The plaintiff also told the Minister that the western side of the said land was presently occupied by persons who had purchased that section from him and that they were planting food crops on the land. The plaintiff requested the Minister to use his good offices with a view to obtaining pipe-borne water for the plaintiff's said land so that the plaintiff could water his cattle properly. The Plaintiff told the Minister that the area which he had padlocked for his cattle had not been under sugar cane cultivation for about seven years and that the last crop that had been planted there — to the best of the Plaintiff's information — was a crop of peas. The Minister expressed to the Plaintiff his interest in the Plaintiffs dairy scheme, and suggested to the Plaintiff that he discuss the mechanics of the matter with the officers of the Agricultural Department. The Plaintiff stated that he would be willing and happy for the officers of the agricultural Department to visit his said land and see what plans he had proposed.

5 The Minister told the Plaintiff that water was not his department, but that his Permanent Secretary Mr. Dore, would do his best to assist the Plaintiff. The Minister added that the position might not be the same as far as lands that were under sugar cane previously were concerned. After this conference with the Minister, the Plaintiff attended the Agricultural Department offices at La Guerite. As a result, Mr. Kenneth Martin, an Agricultural Officer, accompanied the Plaintiff to the latter's land at West Farm. Mr. Martin looked at the Plaintiffs animals inspected the area and made certain suggestions to the Plaintiff. On a subsequent date one Mr. Wilkin, another Agricultural Officer of the said Department inspected the Plaintiff's said land and made additional suggestions. As a result of those suggestions, the Plaintiff applied in writing to the Agricultural Department for the purchase of fencing wire. The application was approved by the Agricultural Department, and the Plaintiff purchased from the said department sixteen rolls of fencing wire at $30.00 per roll. The Plaintiff thereupon supplemented the existing barbed wire fencing with the newly purchased wire. When the newly purchased fencing wire was exhausted, the Plaintiff made a fresh application to the Agricultural Department for the purchase of an additional 12 rolls of fencing wire. Again the application was granted. The Plaintiff purchased the 12 rolls of fencing wire from the Agricultural Department and used the said wire in building three distinct paddocks on the said 10 acres, so as to rotate the feeding of the animals in accordance with the advice he had received. The Plaintiff also “brushed cut” the upper paddock in accordance with advice received. The Plaintiff then received permission from the Water Department to run pipelines from the adjacent lands of Esbon Anthony Ross, deceased. The lines were run by an employee of the Water Department and a water meter was installed in the middle paddock. There was a small building on the said land, which the Plaintiff had erected in June or July 1973 to provide accommodation for Nelson Byron. The said building is made of concrete, wood and galvanised iron. A section of the Plaintiff's said land which is situate West of the paddocks and immediately North of the seashore was cultivated since last year by one Olive Huggins who worked the land on a share basis with the Plaintiff as to produce. The Plaintiff now has 17 head of cattle on the said 10 acres of land. This number includes 6 calves, which were born this year. On or about the 6 ^th October, 1974 the Plaintiff received from Mr. W. F. Dore, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Housing and Labour, a letter dated 6 ^th October, 1974. The letter is in the following terms: –

“Dear Dr. Herbert,

S R & 0 1973, No.30 of 1973 directed that you put lands owned by you at West Farm Estate under sugar cane production within a specific period after which (if this was not done) the obligation to cultivate would rest with SIRO.

You made earlier representation to the Ministry of Agriculture, Housing and Labour with respect to the land used in the hope to secure a modification of the direction. It has not bean found possible to agree to your request.

SIRO is in a position to begin cultivation of that land on October 19, 1974 and it will be appreciated if you can arrange the removal of the animals presently tethered and fencing in order that the can planting operations can be begun by that date.

Your kind co-operation in this matter is anticipated.

I am,

Yours truly,

W. F. Dore

Permanent Secretary”.

6 The Plaintiff replied to Mr. Dore's letter of the 6 ^th October by a lengthy letter dated 7 ^th October 1974, which was copied to the Attorney General. In his said letter of the 7 ^th October 1974, the Plaintiff mentioned that the first paragraph of Mr. Dore's letter...