Majorie Ramsaran (also known as Marjorie Matadial) Defendant/Appellant v Attorney General for St. Christopher & Nevis Plaintiff/Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: ROBOTHAM, C.J.
• Judgment Date: 09 October 1985
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1985] ECSC J0310-1
• Docket Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 of 1985
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Date: 09 October 1985

[1985] ECSC J0310-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Robotham—Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice Bishop

The Honourable Mr. Justice Moe

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 of 1985

Between:

Majorie Ramsaran (also known as Marjorie Matadial)

Defendant/Appellant

and

The Attorney General for St. Christopher & Nevis

Plaintiff/Respondent

Appearances:

F. Kelsick and C. Wilkin for the Appellant.

T. Byron for the Attorney General

ROBOTHAM, C.J.

1 The appellant is a citizen of Jamaica by birth, and in December, 1973, was the spouse of a Guyanese national Hans Matadial, who was then Registrar of Titles for the State of St. Christopher and Nevis (heroin-after also referred to as St. Kitts).

2 The marriage is still subsisting and to date neither the appellant, nor her husband are, were, or ever have been registered or naturalised as citizens of St. Christopher and Nevis and there exists at present no legal basis whereby they can become citizens.

3 Both the appellant and her husband resided in St. Kitts for 5 to 6 years during which period, they produced a son Rajendra born on November 30, 1970. Whilst therefore Rajendra became a belonger of St. Christopher and Nevis by virtue of his birth, both the appellant and her husband remained aliens and as such were incapable of holding any land or are mortgage on land within the State of St. Kitts by virtue of section 3 of the Aliens Land Holding Regulation Law Cap 102—(hereinafter referred to as the Act).

4 On December 28, 1973 a registered title was issued to the appellant recorded at Y1 Folio 199 in respect of 2 acres of land being part of Shadwell Estate. This title was signed by her husband as Registrar of Titles. It was not issued to her in her own name, simpliciter, but rather it was issued to "Marjorie Ramsaran Trustee for Rajendra Ramsaran". This is of importance because as we shall later see, it was the argument of Counsel for the appellant that the Act does not say that an alien cannot hold land in trust for a citizen.

5 Nothing further occurred until April 26, 1976 when the appellant applied in her own name for a licence under section 3 of the Act in respect of 3 ¹/₄ acres of land which included the 2 acres mentioned above. After giving the particulars required by the application, she added

"This application is only for the purpose of holding the lands mentioned in trust for my son who was born on the 30.11.70. I regret that at the time of purchase I did not realise that I required a licence to hold land in for my son……"

6 The record does not clearly disclose by what process the size of the "trust land" was increased from 2 to 3 ¹/₄ acres but suffice it to say the application was refused and no licence was even granted.

7 The next step was on September 44 1981, when the appellant in report of the 2 acres of land comprised in Y1 Folio 199 signed a memorandum of transfer in favour of a citizen "John F.A. Clarke Trustee for Rajendra Ramsaran Matadial". It was not filed in the Land Registry until December 6, 1982. It remained unregistered, and on May 3, 1983 the Attorney General entered a caveat against the land. This was following by the filing on June 19, 1984 of an originating summons in which the Attorney General sought an order declaring that the title of the appellant to the said 2 acres of land described in the certificate of title was forfeited to the Crown under" and by virtue of section 5 of the Aliens Land Holding Act Cap. 102.

8 On February 21, 1985, Peterkin J. granted the declaration south"; and vested the land in Her Majesty in accordance with section 5 of the Act.

9 The appellant appealed on the ground that it was unreasonable and against the weight of the evidence, and that the Judge erred in finding that he had no alternative but to make the order for forfeiture.

10 Section 3 of the Act provides:-

"Subject to he provisions of this Act, neither land in the State nor a mortgage on land in the State shall after the commencement of this Act be held by an unlicenced alien and any land or mortgage so held shall be forfeited to Her Majesty provided that……"

11 Subsections (a)-(e) provide the exceptions.

12 In my view, nothing could be clearer than the above. It expressly forbids an unlicenced alien to hold land or a mortgage on land without a licence. An interesting exception is (e) which states:

"Nothing in this Act shall affect the estate or interest of an alien in any land or mortgage held by him at the commencement of this Act."

13 The right of the alien to held land of which he was possessed at the time the Act came into force was preserved. His right to hold land acquired after the commencement of the Act, was not taken away, but It, could only do so if he obtained a licence. This licence is greet by the Governor with or without conditions under section 4(1) of the act and it shall have no force and effect after having been granted until it is registered in the Record Office.

14 Under section 4(2)

"On breach of any condition in a licence to hold land as owner or tenant or mortgagee the estate and interest of the alien in the land or...