Tweed & Associates Garage Ltd v Tweed

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Hylton, J.
• Judgment Date: 28 July 1993
• Neutral Citation: KN 1993 HC 22
• Docket Number: No. 177 of 1991
• Date: 28 July 1993

High Court

Hylton, J.

No. 177 of 1991

Tweed & Associates Garage Ltd.

and

Tweed

Appearances:

Messrs Inniss & Inniss for the plaintiff

Dr. Henry Browne for the defendant

Tort - Unlawful removal of goods from site — Damages — Plaintiff company granted permission to use an area at the Conaree Dump to place scrap metal — Area was a distance from site for dumping garbage generally — Defendant and men removed derelict equipment which plaintiff claimed — Defendant made aware equipment was so claimed — Plaintiff entitled to damages for being deprived of the derelict equipment.

Hylton, J.

1 Sir Probyn Inniss opened the plaintiff's case by encapsulating the claim of the plaintiff thus “The plaintiff's claim is for damages for goods which defendant unlawfully took, and removed from site at Conaree Estate. Site is separate and some distance away from general garbage dump. Evidence will disclose Plaintiff/Company given lease and license by Ministry of Trade and Industry to use a piece of land to store used equipment and that he proceeded to store used equipment there”. The Managing Director of the Plaintiff/Company gave evidence with regard to the removal of equipment from the site referred to above on the 25 ^th July, 1991. He said that on the day in question he went to the site and saw some workers from Equipment Association Limited with equipment removing his property. This Company is operated by the brother of the Managing Director of the Plaintiff/Company. The witness spoke to the workers who paused then returned to the process of loading his property unto the equipment of Equipment Association Limited. On seeing this the witness went to the Basseterre Police Station and was accompanied back to the site by Corporal Wilmot Alleyne. On return to the site the defendant was present with others of his. workers. The defendant was actually standing upon a piece of equipment that the Managing Director of the Plaintiff/ Company said belonged to him and was trying to tie some to enable his crane to lift and load same. The plaintiff witness said he spoke to Sylvester Tweed telling him that the equipment belonged to him — that the defendant behaved arrogantly — told the Police the equipment did not belong to the plaintiff and conducted himself in such a way that the plaintiff witness moved away. The plaintiff witness continued that after the Police Officer had spoken with the defendant he drove man to the defendant's premises and showed same to the Police. At the defendant's premises the plaintiff witness said he saw a scraper and a truck that belonged to him and had been on the designated site. Thereafter the plaintiff noticed, he said, trucks, scrapers some “I beams” and parts off some of the equipment that belonged to him were missing — some of which had still been on the site when the defendant and his workers were there removing equipment that all belonged to plaintiff. Because of the removal of parts from the equipment they were no longer fit for shipment and consequently the plaintiff sought legal advice. Letter of 9 ^th August, 1991 from plaintiff's Solicitors to the defendant was tendered in evidence as Exhibit B.T.5 and it is noted that therein a claim of $618,280.00 was made for equipment and parts removed from the site. The plaintiff at trial could not remember the value placed on each bit of equipment and some of the parts allegedly removed by the defendant and the price he quoted was in respect of new equipment and not the value to him of the derelict equipment. It is noted also that in the pleadings a total value of $527,258.00 is placed on all the parts and items.

2 Since the occurrence of 25 ^th July, 1991 the plaintiff has continued to use the selected/designated site but has constructed an embankment and gates to protect the equipment thereon and plaintiff stated specifically that none of the equipment and parts on the site were abandoned by him.

3 Under cross-examination by counsel for the defendant the plaintiff witness said he was born in 1956 and he remembers when the garbage dump was located at Ponds Site — He-agreed also that since the dump was established at Conaree people including himself have always gone there to look for abandoned things which maybe of use to them and he conceded that he has removed old vehicles from dump but, said he did so with permission of Public Health Inspector in charge of same and stated that once he has removed some thing from the regular garbage dump to the site selected/designated to him by Government he regards those items as his property. The witness agreed that Exhibit B.T.1 (letter from Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Trade and Industry) refers to “an area, has been designated at the Conaree dump”. In continuing under cross-examination the plaintiff witness said a total of five trucks were missing from his designated site and he was able to identify one of them on defendant's property. That particular one he had obtained when he cleared up a neighbour's property and others were obtained when he cleared some Government property. He conceded that “the truck” had no engine — no chassis etc. but had good spare parts and he would therefore refer to it as spare parts and scrap metal. Under re-examination the witness said, some of his missing property were seen by him on defendant's property.

4 CORPORAL WILMOT ALLEYNE of the Basseterre Police Station corroborated the testimony of the plaintiff in regard to the Report and visit to the Conaree Area. He said further that Bertram Tweede pointed out that on two pieces of machinery there were white painted plyboard attached by wire but to this witness there were no visible writings thereon. On speaking to Sylvester Tweed who was there with a number of men regarding the Report made, Sylvester Tweed replied to “the Police Officer as follows: “Officer as far as I know this is the Conaree Dump Site and there is nothing here to indicate this is private property,— further anything on the dump site can be taken and used by an body and if someone is claiming this as theirs then they will have to prove to me that firstly this scrap metal belongs to them — they have ownership of it and secondly this plot of land, on which it is as their private property and not part of the dump”. The Police Officer also said that Sylvester Tweed pointed to a quantity of garbage which was strewn around and which he claimed-proved to him that that was part of the dump. He the defendant further said according to the Police Officer, “that if someone could satisfy him with the proof he required he would leave the scrap well alone but until then he would take whatever he wanted”.

5 The Police Officer also corroborated the plaintiff witness and Mr. Osbourne, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Trade and industry that the selected/designated site is separate from the regular garbage dump in this wise “To get to dump you turn off Island Main Road travel south-easterly along dirt road and there is a turn — left turn to get to dumb, that is, first turn. We continued along dirt road going south-easterly and about 25 yards further along you turn left again and went in 20 or 30 feet that's where first piece of machinery — I believe a derelict scraper was”. This witness was cross-examined briefly and I hope I do no disservice to counsel when I hold that nothing turns on the evidence adduced in cross-examination.

6 THE CASE FOR THE DEFENDANT opened with the calling of an elderly gentleman Riley 0'Flaherty and again nothing turns on his evidence because the plaintiff does not dispute that people are accustomed to taking from the Conaree dump anything for which they have use without being hindered by anyone. The gravamen of the instant case turns on whether or not the Plaintiff/Company did so get permission from the appropriate authorities to use an area in close proximity to the Conaree Dump to store old and or derelict equipment and parts and whether or not the defendant removed some of these equipment and parts and persisted and continued the removal after it was brought to his attention by and in the presence of the Police Officer that the Plaintiff/Company claimed them as their property.

7 The defendant denied that he took any property of the Plaintiff/Company on 25 ^th July, 1991 but this denial has no weight since the defendant set out for the police Officer in very clear terms the conditions under which he would desist from removing the equipment and spares on 25 ^th July, 1991 and these conditions were not then met.

8 The defendant...