Isaac v Richard

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Glasgow, J.
• Judgment Date: 13 July 1972
• Neutral Citation: KN 1972 HC 11
• Docket Number: No. 34 of 1969
• Date: 13 July 1972

High Court

Glasgow, J.

No. 34 of 1969

Isaac

and

Richard

F.C. Adams for plaintiff.

M. Davis Q.C. with him F.E. Kelsick for defendant.

Real property - Limitation of actions — Limitation Ordinance, Cap. 45.

Facts: The plaintiff, as sole administratrix of the estate of the deceased, sought a declaration that a chattel house formed part of the estate of the deceased. The question was whether the plaintiff could bring the action six years of residing in England and having taken no action against the defendant who was renting the house from the plaintiff after the death of the deceased.

Held: That the action could not be pursued since it was provided by the Limitation Ordinance, Cap. 45 that actions founded on simple contract or tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. Judgment given for the defendant.

Glasgow, J.

1 This action is brought by the plaintiff as sole Administratrix of the Estate of George Theophilus Onesimus Isaac (otherwise known as George Isaac) deceased, who died intestate on the 21 ^st July 1968. Letters of Administration were granted to the plaintiff on the 18 ^th June 1969.

2 Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Statement of Claim read as follows:

• “2. At he date of his death the said George Isaac deceased was the lawful owner of a chattel house situate at Newton Ground Village St. Kitts.

• 3. In or about the month of October 1960 the plaintiff in her capacity as Agent of the said George Isaac deceased rented the said chattel house to the defendant, at an agreed rental of $12.00 per month.

• 4. The defendant refused to pay any more rent to the plaintiff's son as agent of the said George Isaac, deceased, nor has the said defendant paid rent to any one else on behalf of the said George Isaac, deceased.

• 5. By letter dated the 26 ^th April, 1969 written by the defendant's solicitor to the Central Housing & Planning Authority (which has a registered Bill of Sale on the said chattel house) the defendant wrongfully maintained that the plaintiff in September 1960 in a personal capacity “had sold him (meaning the defendant) whatever beneficial interest she then owned” in the said chattel house, and in consequence therefore the defendant now wrongfully claims that he the defendant is the owner in possession of the said chattel house.

3 AND the plaintiff claims:

• a) A declaration that the said chattel house forms part of the estate of the said George Isaac, deceased;

• b) Possession of the said chattel house;

• c) Mesne profits;

• d) Further or other relief; and

• e) Costs”.

4 In his Statement of Defence the defendant denied each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Statement of Claim. With reference to paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim the defendant denied that he ever paid rent to the plaintiff as agent for George Isaac, deceased, or at all. The defendant stated that he has at all material times unqualifiedly rejected all and sundry demands made upon him for rent for the said chattel house. The defendant further alleged that in the month of September, 1960, the plaintiff held herself out to him as the sole owner of the said chattel house and sold all and sundry her alleged beneficial interest therein to the defendant for $600.00 and that from the month of September, 1960, the defendant took possession of the said chattel house in pursuance of the said chattel house in pursuance of his said purchase of the same from the plaintiff and that from thenceforth to the date of the Writ of Summons herein the defendant has been in possession of said chattel house as owner of the same and has effected repairs improvements and renovations to the same at a cost of $1000.00 approximately or over. The defendant intimated that he would rely on the Limitation Ordinance Cap. 45.

5 In her reply the plaintiff joined issue with the defendant on his defence, and stated as to paragraph 5 of the Defence that the plaintiff in addition to joining issue thereon, says:

• “(a) that the cause of the action relied on is the fraud of the defendant;

• (b) that the plaintiff who has been living in England at all material times did not discover the existence of the fraud and...